CAR_Public/160829.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 172




                            Headlines


2306 WALTON: Martinez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
5150 RACE: "Romero" Lawsuit in Tenn. Alleges Violation of FLSA
600 SOUTH: Faces "Bennett" Class Suit in New York
1B USA: "Alinovskiy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABBVIE INC: 90% of 735 Depakote Claims Pending

B & B HOLDING: Never Pays Proper Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
BILLING RESOURCE: AT&T Seeks to Recoup Charges Under 2010 Deal
BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
BUY BUY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Halfon" Action Claims

CHINA XD: Briefing Schedule in "Yang" Suit Extended
COCA-COLA: 5th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Vending Machines Suit
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Retirement Plan
COMCAST CABLE: Faces "Scott" Class Suit in California
CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over ERISA Violations
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Waters Edge Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Pate" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: FGI Financing Sues Over Forum at Park Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Knotyour Sues Over Arroyo Ave. Properties Value

DALLAS CENTRAL: Market/Ross Sues Over Appraisal of Properties
DALLAS CENTRAL: SNH Sues Over La Sierra Drive Property Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Westbridge Sues Over Apartment Appraisal Value
DC POWER: Faces "Cline" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DEUTSCHE BANK: Dismissal of PICA Class Action Sought

DEZCA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Castellanos" Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA
DRG CONSTRUCTION: "Lizama" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EL NUEVO: Faces "Cabanas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: William Sponn Filed Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed

ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed
FIREEYE INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Class Suit Underway
FLORIDA EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Cadet" Suit Says
FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Sued Over Hospital Liability Liens Collection

FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Dovel" Securities Class Suit in New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Sued by SunEdison Shareholders
GOOGLE INC: Privacy Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
GRANITE SOURCE: Faces "Fonseca" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims

HAIN CELESTIAL: Accused by Lynn of Violating Securities Laws
HARRIS, TX: Faces DBI Investments Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HARRIS, TX: Faces OM Shanti Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HENSHALL PARKING: Faces "Andrade" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
HIGHER ONE: "Perez" Securities Class Action Still Pending

HIGHER ONE: "Hall" Case Settlement Still Pending
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of "Donato" Securities Case Sought
JOHNSON CONTROL: Shareholders Sue Over Tyco Merger Deal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over BBSW, Related Derivatives "Conspiracy"
LA FONDA: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Fla. Alleging Violation of FLSA

LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Remand Miller Energy Cases Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Plains All American Case
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Suit Against Securities America Pending
LADY FORTUNES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Gomez" Suit Says
LAS VEGAS SANDS: No Hearing Date Set for Summary Judgment Motion

LEWIS CASING: Faces "Calvillo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
M.L. ZAGER: "Corso" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing Set
MARUYASU INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Auto Steel Tubes "Price Fixing"
MCDONALD CORP: Must Defend Against Wage Theft Class Action

MDL 2196: Tridien Medical Received $1.2MM from Settlement
MDL 2545: 195 TRT Claims Pending vs. AbbVie
METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Action Still Pending in Georgia
METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Class Action Appeal Underway
METLIFE INC: "Intoccia" Class Action Appeal Underway

METLIFE INC: Class Member in "Fauley" Case Seeks Review
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing
METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Action Still Pending in Calif.
METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Martin" Action Under Appeal
METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Still Pending in New York

METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois
MID-CENTURY: "Cumley" Class Suit Removed to District of Montana
MILLER'S ALE: Faces "Bolt" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss & Transfer Case Pending
NATALEX REST: "Aragon-Padilla" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Labor Law

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Heard Arguments on Rikers Island Suit
NEWLINK GENETICS: To Defend Against "Abramson" Action in S.D.N.Y.
NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against Former Employees' Suit
NOODLES & COMPANY: "Carter" Class Suit Dismissed in Colorado
NORTHERN OIL: Faces "Fries" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled in October
OCEAN DETAILING: Faces "Datilus" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OK FOODS: "Cato" Class Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to W.D. Arkansas
ORACLE: 2 Class Suits Over Inflated Revenue Dismissed
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff to Appeal Dismissal

OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Hunter" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global
OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Abbas" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global
OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Baumgartner" Securities Class Suit
PEOPLES BANCORP: NC Business Court Dissolved Appellate Stay
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in "Bushansky" Class Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Muir and Rosen Lawsuits Consolidated
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement of Sterling Case Has Initial OK
QUAKER OATS: "Dickson" Consumer Lawsuit Removed to W.D. Missouri
RETROPHIN INC: Settlement in "Kazanchyan" Okayed, Case Dismissed
REX ENERGY: Appeal in Cardinale Case Remains Pending

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Pending in Warren Police Case
RIMAX CONTRACTORS: Faces Suit in La. Over Alleged FLSA Violation
RINGCENTRAL INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Supply Pro Case
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Nov. 9 Fairness Hearing Set on "Ding" Accord
S&P 72: Faces "Gabino" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAMSUNG: Class Suit Filed in New Jersey over Exploding Washers
SMITH LAYDOWN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Godlsby" Suit Claims
SONY CORP: Judge Declines to Rule on Microsoft's Arbitration Bid
SOVRAN SELF: Still Defends Class Action in New Jersey
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing Denied

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defending 3 Lawsuits Related to Abbott Merger
ST. PAUL FEDERAL: Faces "Reed" Class Suit in Dist. of Minnesota
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Action Remains Pending
SUNPOWER CORP: "Bristow" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violation
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Appeal Decertification Order Nixed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of "Fritsch" Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Remaining Claims in FLSA Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Washington OT Class Actions in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit to Move Into Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Banks" FCRA Suit Moved to Arizona

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mediation in Utah Case Flopped
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Oppose Class Cert. Bid in "Anderson"
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Still Defends TelexFree Litigation
TALMER BANCORP: Bushanky and Nicholl Lawsuits Dismissed
TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Employees Filed Class Suit

TD AMERITRADE: Faces Class Suit Over Transaction Fees
TD AMERITRADE: Dismissal of Zola et al. Cases Under Appeal
TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Motions in 4th Qtr
TPC CONTRACTORS: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TRXADE GROUP: Awaiting Final Approval of $200,000 Settlement

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Planned JCI Merger
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Has Yet to Set Hearing Date
UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Mid-2017 in "Morgate" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: One Case Remains Outstanding in Ontario
WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime

WASHINGTON: Residents File Class Suit Over Jury Pay
WECKERLE SALES: Faces "Chacon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Defendants Seek to Dismiss PICA Suit
WESTCOAST WRECKER: Faces "Curtis" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Gilhousen" Suit Over Sale to Danone

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: "Driskell" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Case Denied
ZAFGEN INC: Dismissal of "Bessler" Case Under Appeal
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: $37MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval
ZYNGA INC: Proceedings in Lee v. Pincus Stalled


                            *********


2306 WALTON: Martinez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA MARTINEZ individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by 2306 WALTON LLC d/b/a FINE
FARE SUPERMARKET, and DAVID VARGAS individually v. 2306 WALTON LLC
d/b/a FINE FARE SUPERMARKET, and or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled 2306 WALTON LLC d/b/a FINE FARE SUPERMARKET,
and DAVID VARGAS, individually, Case No. 156903/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty., August 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages, and damages arising from record-
keeping violations, owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly
situated persons, who worked for the Defendants as cashiers,
grocery packers, grocery stockers, deli servers, butchers, cooks,
and other employees performing similar supermarket related tasks.

2306 WALTON LLC, doing business as Fine Fare Supermarket, is a New
York domestic business corporation with a principal place of
business in New York City.  David Vargas is the president or owner
of the Company.  The Defendants are engaged in the food supply
industry, and operate supermarkets in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  mmoreno@vandallp.com


5150 RACE: "Romero" Lawsuit in Tenn. Alleges Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO MEIJA ROMERO individually on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, v. 5150 RACE TRAILERS, INC. and MICHAEL DEAN
WALKER, individually. Case No: 1:16-cv-00063 (M.D. Tenn., August
12, 2016), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

5150 RACE TRAILERS, INC.'s website claims to be home of the
highest quality Race Trailers and Coaches on the Planet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER
     SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: 615-354-1144
     E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
             eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

        - and -

     Heather M. Collins, Esq.
     COLLINS & HUNTER PLLC
     7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320
     Brentwood, TN 37027
     Phone: 615-724-1996
     E-mail: heather@collinshunter.com


600 SOUTH: Faces "Bennett" Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against 600 South Ocean
Operating Corp. d/b/a Lombardi's on the Bay f/k/a Momma Lombardi's
Of Holbrook, Inc., Lombardi Caterers Inc. f/k/a Lombardi's on the
Sound, QCG Inc. d/b/a Villa Lombardi's, Qurino Lombardi, Jerry
Lombardi, Josephine Lombardi Papadakis, Filomena Lombardi & Guy
Lombardi.

The case is captioned Gregory Bennett, on behalf of himself &
others similarly situated v. 600 South Ocean Operating Corp. d/b/a
Lombardi's on the Bay f/k/a Momma Lombardi's Of Holbrook, Inc.,
Lombardi Caterers Inc. f/k/a Lombardi's on the Sound, QCG Inc.
d/b/a Villa Lombardi's, Qurino Lombardi, Jerry Lombardi, Josephine
Lombardi Papadakis, Filomena Lombardi & Guy Lombardi, Case No.
609419/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 17, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Patchogue,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      FRANK & ASSOCIATES
      500 Bi-County Blvd, Ste 112N
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400

The Defendant is represented by:

      LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP
      500 N. Broadway, Ste 105
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050


1B USA: "Alinovskiy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olesya N. Alinovskiy, and all others similarly situated v. 1B.
USA, LLC and Arkadiy Pervyybakhtin, Case No. 1:16-cv-23569-DPG
(S.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Founded in 2013 with its corporate office in Miami, Florida,
1B.USA, LLC is a purchasing channel and an exporter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


ABBVIE INC: 90% of 735 Depakote Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that product liability cases are
pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not
adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various
birth defects, arising from use of Depakote. Over ninety percent
of the approximately 735 claims are pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and the rest
are pending in various other federal and state courts. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages.


B & B HOLDING: Never Pays Proper Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS GARCIA, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. B & B HOLDING ENTERPRISES, INC., and WILFRED
BRACERAS, Case No. 1:16-cv-23547-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 17, 2016),
alleges that Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours a week for
the Defendants but was never paid anything for any hours worked
over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

B & B Holding is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within Dade County, Florida.  Wilfred Braceras is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.  The Company, based in
Tampa, Florida, operates a chain of grocery stores and convenience
stores in the United States.  The Company also operates a real
estate division, which leases and manages properties throughout
central and southern Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BILLING RESOURCE: AT&T Seeks to Recoup Charges Under 2010 Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T SERVICES, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AT&T OPERATIONS,
INC., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T
ARKANSAS, AT&T KANSAS, AT&T MISSOURI, AT&T OKLAHOMA, AND AT&T
TEXAS; PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T CALIFORNIA AND
NEVADA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T NEVADA); ILLINOIS BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T ILLINOIS, INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY, INCORPORATED D/B/A AT&T INDIANA, MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY D/B/A AT&T MICHIGAN, THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A
AT&T OHIO, AND WISCONSIN BELL, INC. D/B/A AT&T WISCONSIN ; AND
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC D/B/A AT&T ALABAMA, AT&T
FLORIDA, AT&T GEORGIA, AT&T KENTUCKY, AT&T LOUISIANA, AT&T
MISSISSIPPI, AT&T NORTH CAROLINA, AT&T SOUTH CAROLINA, AND AT&T
TENNESSEE, v. THE BILLING RESOURCE, LLC, Case No. DC-16-09874
filed August 15, 2016, in the District Court Judicial District
Dallas County, Texas, seeks to recover approximately $245,000.00
in alleged unpaid charges that TBR owes AT&T, pursuant to the
terms of a contract for billing services that the parties
executed, effective December 16, 2010.

The Billing Resource, LLC is an aggregator of fixed telephone line
billing, providing alternative billing services to the Company and
unrelated third parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mr. Nelson Gerard, Esq.
     THE BILLING RESOURCE, LLC
     302 Enzo Drive, Suite 162
     San Jose, CA 95138
     Phone: 646-734-3 700

        - and -

     Mr. Steven Rosenthal, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ROSENTHAL
     236 17 Arminta Street
     West Hills, CA 91304
     New York, NY
     Phone: 818-577-8296
     E-mail: StevenRosenthal@socialrr.com

        - and -

     Mr. Sean A. Moynihan, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF KMT I KLIEN, MOYNIHAN & TURCO
     450 Seventh A venue, 40111 Floor
     New York, NY 101 23
     Phone: 212-246-0900
     E-mail: smoynihan@klienmoynihan.com


BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Perry Cook, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Buckeye, Inc., Case No. 7:16-cv-00305
(D.N.M., August 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Buckeye, Inc. is an oilfield services company providing drilling
fluids products and services to wells throughout the United
States, including in New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Milad K. Farah, Esq.
      GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC
      1231 E Missouri Ave.
      El Paso, TX 79902
      Telephone: (915) 533-0880
      Facsimile: (915) 533-1155
      E-mail: mkf@gflawoffices.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      St. Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned John Perry Cook, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buckeye, Inc.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00424, was transferred from the District of New
Mexico to the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas
(Midland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:16-cv-
00305 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Buckeye, Inc. is an oilfield services company providing drilling
fluids products and services to wells throughout the United
States, including in New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
              mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Milad Kaissar Farah, Esq.
      GUERRA & FARAH PLLC
      1231 E. Missouri
      El Paso, TX 79902
      Telephone: (915) 533-0880
      Facsimile: (915) 533-1155
      E-mail: mkf@gflawoffices.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Clara B. Burns, Esq.
      KEMP SMITH LLP
      221 N. Kansas, Suite 1700
      El Paso, TX 79901
      Telephone: (915) 533-4424
      Facsimile: (915) 546-5360
      E-mail: clara.burns@kempsmith.com


BUY BUY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Halfon" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Halfon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05037 (D.N.J.,
August 17, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using
an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
prior express consent of the called party.

Buy Buy Baby, Inc. is a chain of stores that sell clothing,
strollers and other items for use with infants and young children.

Eric Halfon is a pro se plaintiff.


CHINA XD: Briefing Schedule in "Yang" Suit Extended
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD)(S.D.N.Y.),
Judge George B. Daniels entered a Stipulation and Order extending
the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion to strike.  According
to the Stipulaton and Order:

     -- China XD Plastics Co. Ltd. shall respond to the Motion
        on or before September 16, 2016;

     -- Lead plaintiffs shall have up to and including October 7,
        2016 to file a reply in further support of their Motion.

Meanwhile, China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a class action complaint
remains pending.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions, which allege
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16,
2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD)
and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-
5359 (GBD), respectively.

On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs.  On February 17, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf
of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased
the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between
March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, both dates inclusive.

Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two
of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted
material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that the individual
defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the
Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions were made.  The lead plaintiffs seek
damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an
Opinion and Order dismissing the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint without prejudice.

On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to amend the
Complaint. On June 24, 2016, the Company filed its opposition to
the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs' reply to the Company's
opposition was due August 8, 2016. Management believes the
proposed amendment is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against it.


COCA-COLA: 5th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Vending Machines Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Fifth Circuit affirmed
on August 15 the dismissal of a class action in New Orleans
against Coca-Cola over vending machines that are not accessible to
blind people.

Plaintiff-Appellant Emmett Magee brought this action on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated against Coca-Cola
Refreshments USA, Inc., asserting claims under Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Magee alleges that Coca-Cola owns
and operates glass-front vending machines in public spaces and
that those machines are not accessible to him and others who are
blind. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that
the vending machines it operates are not "places of public
accommodation" as required by the applicable provisions of the
ADA. The district court agreed and dismissed Magee's complaint,
holding that Coca-Cola's vending machines are not themselves
"places of public accommodation."

"In deciding that Coca-Cola's vending machines in the instant case
are not places of public accommodation, we acknowledge the limits
of our holding. As the district court recognized, those vending
machines may very well be subject to various requirements under
the ADA by virtue of their being located in a hospital or a  bus
station, both of which are indisputably places of public
accommodation.  Here, however, Magee sued only Coca-Cola, an
entity that does not own, lease (or lease to), or operate a place
of public accommodation," the Fifth Circuit said.

The case is, EMMETT MAGEE, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COCA-COLA
REFRESHMENTS USA, INCORPORATED, No. 15-31018 Defendant - Appellee
(5th Cir.).

A copy of the decision is available at https://is.gd/3pDaj4


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Columbia University is turning what should have been the golden
period of its employees lives into "a retirement nightmare," one
woman claims in a federal class action, mirroring recent
complaints against other prominent schools.

Filing suit anonymously August 16, Jane Doe hopes to represent the
27,000 current and former participants in the two plans Columbia
offers: a retirement plan for university officers and the Columbia
University Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan.

With billions of dollars of assets at stake, Columbia should "have
tremendous bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and
investment management services," according to the complaint.

But Doe, a participant in the plans since 2014, says Columbia
fumbled the play.

"Instead of leveraging the bargaining power of both plans,
Columbia University caused the plans to pay unreasonable and
greatly excessive fees for recordkeeping, administrative, and
investment services," the complaint states.

"Instead of using its sophistication to identify and select high-
quality investments that benefited participants and beneficiaries,
Columbia University selected and retained expensive and poor-
performing investment options that consistently and historically
underperformed their benchmarks and similar funds.

This from a school that "counts 13 students and teachers who have
won the Nobel Prize in Economics," Doe says.

Doe notes that she is one of thousands of Columbia University
employees who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the plans
every year, expecting that "the world-renowned institution had
constructed a stellar retirement portfolio that offered superior
investment options and world-class investment management."

"Instead, Columbia University saddled each of their 27,000
participants with an overall sub-standard plan, loaded with $4.6
billion of investment options that were primarily poor to mediocre
performers," the complaint states.

Doe says the result is that participants like her have suffered
"hundreds of millions of dollars of staggering losses to
retirement savings."

The complaint echoes federal class actions filed across the
country last week against the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Yale University and New York University.

Columbia declined to comment on pending litigation but offered a
defense of its retirement plans anyway.

"Columbia is proud of the retirement benefits offered to its
faculty and staff and takes its responsibility as a fiduciary
seriously," the Morningside Heights school said in a statement.

The class suing Columbia seeks $100 million in damages, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Doe rakes Columbia over the coals in particular for its investment
of nearly $1 billion in plan assets in TIAA-CREF Stock Account R3,
an asset she says "ranked in the bottom quartile for the past 3,
5, and 10 years for like investments according to Morningstar."

"The TIAA-CREF Stock Account was so imprudent that in 2012
AonHewitt, a solutions expert in pension plan administration,
recommended to its clients that they remove this fund from their
retirement plans," the complaint continues.

Class counsel David Sanford, of the Washington, D.C., firm Sanford
Heisler, noted in a statement that "Columbia was on notice that
TIAA-CREF was a deficient investment."

"It wasn't merely that TIAA-CREF performed poorly in a single year
or two," Sanford said. "In fact, the TIAA-CREF Stock Account has
been poor for many years compared to both available lower-cost
index funds and the index benchmark."

Citing Morningstar data, the lawsuit says the TIAA-CREF Stock
Account underperformed by approximately 19 percent.

On a $1 billion investment, such underperformance amounts to
almost $200 million dollars in losses to retirement savings.

Doe says Columbia's two plans earned constitute "jumbo plans"
because strong enrollment puts them among the top 1 percent of all
defined contribution plans in the United States.

"For a leading university that touts its business skill and
acumen, the more than 27,000 current and former Columbia
University employees who participated in the Plans deserved
better," the complaint states.

The case is captioned Jane Doe, individually and as representative
of a class of similarly situated persons of the Retirement Plan
for Officers of Columbia University and the Columbia University
Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan, v. Columbia University and Vice
President of Human Resources, Dianne Kenney, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06488 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER LLP
     1350 Avenue of the Americas 31st Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: 646.402.5650
     E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com

        - and -

     David Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
     1666 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 310
     Washington, DC 20009
     Phone: (202) 742-7780
     Fax: (202) 742-7776
     E-mail: dsanford@nydclaw.com

        - and -

     Charles H. Field, Esq.
     Edward Chapin, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER LLP
     501 West Broadway, Suite 515
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619.577.4252
     E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com


COMCAST CABLE: Faces "Scott" Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Comcast Cable
Communications Management LLC and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive.

The case is captioned Andre Scott, Elijah Maxwell-Wilson, and Ken
Fassler, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v.
Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC and Does 1 to 50,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 553754 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 18,
2016).

Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC operates a
broadcasting and cable television company in Philadelphia, PA.


CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BROCK, JUAN HERNANDEZ, TYLER LINDSEY, SAVINO LUNA, VICTOR
MARTINEZ and MARCUS MUNOZ, Each Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. CONQUEST COMPLETION SERVICES, LLC,
ALEX DEMPSEY and ROBERT DEMPSEY, Each Individually and as Officers
of CGS RENTALS, LLC, and 5 STAR OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No:
5:16-cv-00814 (W.D. Tex., August 16, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to seek declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated compliant overtime compensation.

CONQUEST COMPLETION SERVICES, LLC provides products and services
in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those
areas in which fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY CUNNINGHAM individually and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Cornell University
Retirement Plan for the Employees of the Endowed Colleges at
Ithaca and the Cornell University Tax Deferred Annuity Plan v.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND THE RETIREMENT PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06525 (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), is brought on
behalf of the Plans against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Cornell University Retirement Plan for the Employees of the
Endowed Colleges at Ithaca is a defined contribution, individual
account, employee pension benefit plan under the ERISA.  The
Retirement Plan provides for retirement income for certain
employees of Cornell University.  As of December 31, 2014, the
Retirement Plan had $1.9 billion in net assets and 18,470
participants with account balances.  The Plan is one of the
largest defined contribution plans in the United States.

Cornell University is a non-profit corporation organized under New
York law, which has campuses in Ithica and New York City.  Cornell
is the fiduciary responsible for the control, management and
administration of the Plans.  Cornell is the Plan Administrator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, 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: aschlichter@uselaws.com
                  jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Waters Edge Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waters Edge Apartments Phase II LLC (Royal Lincoln LandPhaseII),
v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-09997 (D.
Tex., August 17, 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:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Pate" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert M. Pate v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-10066 (D. Tex., August 17, 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:

      John Pate, Esq.
      HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON
      6363 N. State Hwy. 161, Suite 450
      Irving, TX 75038
      Telephone: (214) 237-9001
      Facsimile: (214) 237-9002
      E-mail: john@hop-law.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: FGI Financing Sues Over Forum at Park Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------------
FGI FINANCING INC. (Forum at Park Lane) v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09933 filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 16, 2016, is protesting
as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016
market value of the Forum at Park Lane located at 7831 Park Lane,
in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (owned by Plaintiffs), for use by
the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Knotyour Sues Over Arroyo Ave. Properties Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
KNOTYOUR ORDINARY APIS LLC (OAK LAWN HEIGHTS) v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09945, filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 16, 2016, is protesting
as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016
market value of Properties represented by certain Appraisal
District Account Number(s):

      Account Number         Addresses
      --------------         ---------
     C00000208360000000     2702 Arroyo Ave.
     C00000208432000000     2600 Arroyo Ave.

for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Market/Ross Sues Over Appraisal of Properties
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARKET/ROSS, LTD. (Market/Ross Place), v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09931, filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive
an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of
Properties represented by certain Appraisal District Account
Number(s):

      Account Number         Addresses
      --------------         ---------
      00000100138000000      1709 N. Market Street
      00000100141000000      1713 N. Market Street
      00000100144000000      1701 N. Market Street

for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: SNH Sues Over La Sierra Drive Property Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------------------
SNH IL PROPERTIES TRUST, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
Case No: DC-16-09938, filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive an
appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of
certain real property and improvements located at 5455 La Sierra
Drive in Dallas in Dallas County, Texas (represented by Appraisal
District Account Number C0054610A0001B0000) for use by the
relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad
valorem property taxes.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Westbridge Sues Over Apartment Appraisal Value
--------------------------------------------------------------
WESTBRIDGE DALLAS, LLC (Westbridge Apartments) v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09982, filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 16, 2016, is protesting as
excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016
market value of certain real property and improvements known as
the Westbridge Apartments located at 2300 Marsh Lane, in Dallas,
Dallas County, Texas (represented by Appraisal District
Account Number C140565900101R0000) for use by the relevant Taxing
Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem
property taxes.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     MAZELLE S. KRASOFF, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972)931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             mkrasoff@gpd.com


DC POWER: Faces "Cline" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cline, Matthew Simmons, and all others similarly situated v.
DC Power Tong, LLC, Derek Linghor, Jonas McKenzie, Bob Hvinden,
and Michael Shane Kornkven, Case No. 1:16-cv-00301-DLH-CSM
(D.N.D., August 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield services company in North
Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

DEUTSCHE BANK: Dismissal of PICA Class Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the case, PICA et al. v. Deutsche Bank, et al.

In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional
investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court.
In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional
investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior Court,
captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asserting claims relating to
the PSA trusts. In May 2016, the Company, together with other
institutional investors, filed an amended class action complaint
in California State Superior Court. In July 2016, defendant filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed previously in
federal court.


DEZCA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Castellanos" Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANA SAMANTA CASTELLANOS, v. DEZCA ENTERPRISES, INC. a Florida
Profit Corporation, BELINDA CASTRILLO, individually, MARVIN A.
CASTRILLO, individually Case No: CACE-16-014826 (Fla. 17TH
Judicial Circuit, Broward County), August 12, 2016, was filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DEZCA ENTERPRISES, INC. is a plastering drywall & insulation
company in Miramar, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


DRG CONSTRUCTION: "Lizama" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Francisco Lizama and Andy Lizama, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals v. DRG Construction LLC a/k/a
DRG House Lifting and John Does Owner & Operator, Case No.
606279/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor
Code.

DRG Construction LLC is a construction company located at 245 S.
Main Street, Freeport, NY 11520.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil M. Frank, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: nfrank@laborlaws.com


EL NUEVO: Faces "Cabanas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO D. CABANAS and other similarly-situated individuals, v. EL
NUEVO GAUCHITO CORP., OCTAVIO GALLARDO, and PEDRO JAIME LEAL,
individually Case No: 1:16-cv-23491-CMA (S.D. Fla., August 12,
2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant EL NUEVO GAUCHITO is a combination of deli, bakery,
pizzeria and Argentinian restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: William Sponn Filed Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiff, William
Sponn, or Sponn, filed on July 19, 2016, a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive, or the
Class Period, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Emergent and certain of the Company's
senior officers and directors, collectively, the Defendants. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements about the government's
demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year
exclusive procurement contract with HHS would be renewed and
omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified
damages, including legal costs. The Defendants believe that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to
defend themselves vigorously against those claims. As of the date
of this filing, the range of potential loss cannot be determined
or estimated.

Emergent BioSolutions Inc., or Emergent, is a global specialty
biopharmaceutical company seeking to protect and enhance life by
offering specialized products to healthcare providers and
governments to address medical needs and emerging public health
threats.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Bumgarner's claim
related to the WMB Merger has been dismissed with prejudice.

Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported WMB
stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are
captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No.
11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A.
No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v.
Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert
various claims against the individual members of WMB's board of
directors; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the "ETE
Defendants"); WMB; and others.

On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated these six actions into
a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies,
Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the
"Merger Litigation"). In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed
without prejudice the ETE Defendants (among others) from the
consolidated action.

On January 14, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder ("Bumgarner")
filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB and ETE,
captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner alleged that ETE and WMB
violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") by making allegedly false statements concerning
the merger. As relief, the complaint sought an injunction against
the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an
amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On
February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Bumgarner moved for expedited discovery on April 21,
2016.

On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and
dismissed Bumgarner's claims in their entirety with leave to
amend. The Court also granted expedited proceedings. Bumgarner
amended his complaint on May 12, 2016, and ETE and WMB again moved
to dismiss. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part on May 26, 2016, and Bumgarner amended his complaint the same
day.

Following a motion to reconsider filed by ETE and WMB, the Court
revised its Order on the motion to dismiss on June 3, 2016.
Bumgarner filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction on
June 10, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the parties reached a settlement
agreement, and Bumgarner withdrew his motion for a preliminary
injunction. Pursuant to the agreement, WMB issued a press release
and agreed to provide an updated disclosure to its proxy statement
in connection with the merger. WMB also agreed to pay Bumgarner's
attorney fees. On July 28, 2016, Bumgarner's claim was dismissed
with prejudice.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Bumgarner's claim
related to the WMB Merger has been dismissed with prejudice.

Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported WMB
stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are
captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No.
11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A.
No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v.
Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert
various claims against the individual members of WMB's board of
directors; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the "ETE
Defendants"); WMB; and others.

On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated these six actions into
a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies,
Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the
"Merger Litigation"). In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed
without prejudice the ETE Defendants (among others) from the
consolidated action.

On January 14, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder ("Bumgarner")
filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB and ETE,
captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner alleged that ETE and WMB
violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") by making allegedly false statements concerning
the merger. As relief, the complaint sought an injunction against
the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an
amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On
February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Bumgarner moved for expedited discovery on April 21,
2016.

On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and
dismissed Bumgarner's claims in their entirety with leave to
amend. The Court also granted expedited proceedings. Bumgarner
amended his complaint on May 12, 2016, and ETE and WMB again moved
to dismiss. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part on May 26, 2016, and Bumgarner amended his complaint the same
day.

Following a motion to reconsider filed by ETE and WMB, the Court
revised its Order on the motion to dismiss on June 3, 2016.
Bumgarner filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction on
June 10, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the parties reached a settlement
agreement, and Bumgarner withdrew his motion for a preliminary
injunction. Pursuant to the agreement, WMB issued a press release
and agreed to provide an updated disclosure to its proxy statement
in connection with the merger. WMB also agreed to pay Bumgarner's
attorney fees. On July 28, 2016, Bumgarner's claim was dismissed
with prejudice.


FIREEYE INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted
plaintiffs' motion seeking certification of the putative class in
part and denied it in part.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former
members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers,
and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering.
On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the same defendants. The actions were
consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was
filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief."

"On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the
amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court
overruled defendants' demurrers. On January 6, 2016, the Company
and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on April 1,
2016.

"On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the
court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

"On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of the putative class, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on July 11, 2016.

"The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.  Based
on information currently available, the Company has determined
that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is
not reasonably estimable."


FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss a stockholder class action lawsuit remains pending.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 2,
2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
was heard on November 12, 2015. No ruling has been issued on the
motion. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

Based on information currently available, the Company has
determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable.


FLORIDA EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Cadet" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean A. Cadet and others similarly situated v. Florida Executive
Security Agency Inc. and Heniy Dixon, Case No. 1:16-cv-23572-DPG
(S.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate a security services company located
at 641 Ne 4th Street Unit 202, Homestead, FL 33033-7065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Sued Over Hospital Liability Liens Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Geiger and Denis Twomey, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Florida Hospital Memorial Medical
Center, Accelerated Claims, Inc., and Halifax Health Medical
Center of Daytona Beach, Case No. 6:16-cv-01477-RBD-GJK (M.D.
Fla., August 18, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of
the Defendants' unlawful practice of collecting hospital liability
liens for accident-related care.

Florida Hospital Memorial Medical Center operates a non-profit
hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida.

Accelerated Claims, Inc. operates as a claims assistance service
company located at 3450 Acworth Due West Rd, Kennesaw, GA 30144.

Halifax Health Medical Center of Daytona Beach is a non-profit
hospital located at 303 North Clyde Morris Boulevard, Dayton
Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
      JORDAN LEWIS, PA
      4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
      Telephone: (954) 616-8995
      Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
      E-mail: Jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Walrath, Esq.
      MEDICAL BILL CLINIC, PA
      777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 160
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 308-6940
      Facsimile: (305) 455-4331
      E-mail: MWalrath@Medicalbillclinic.com

         - and -

      Steve Sands, Esq.
      SANDS, WHITE & SANDS, PA
      760 White Street
      Daytona Beach, FL 32114
      Telephone: (386) 258-1622
      Facsimile: (386) 253-3703
      E-mail: steve@sandwhitesands.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Dovel" Securities Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DOVEL II, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., GEORGE E. DEESE, ALLEN L. SHIVER,
R. STEVE KINSEY, and KARYL H. LAUDER, Case No. 1:16-cv-06523
(S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), is brought on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired Flowers Foods securities between February
7, 2013, and August 10, 2016, against the Defendants seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Thomasville, Georgia.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Flowers Foods is a food company that operates two business
segments: a directs-tore-delivery segment ("DSD Segment") and a
warehouse delivery segment ("Warehouse Segment").  The DSD Segment
operates 39 bakeries that market a wide variety of fresh bakery
foods, including fresh breads, buns, rolls, tortillas, and snack
cakes.  The Warehouse Segment operates 10 bakeries that produce
snack cakes, breads and rolls for national retail, foodservice,
vending, and co-pack customers, which are delivered through
customers' warehouse channels and one bakery mix plant.

The 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
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (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
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Brian Schall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW PC
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Telephone: (800) 977-7401
          Facsimile: (800) 536-0065
          E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
                  brian@goldberglawpc.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Sued by SunEdison Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that after Goldman Sachs and
other underwriters used misrepresentations to help nonparty
SunEdison raise $650 million at $1,000 a share, the price fell to
$20, shareholders say in the class action in Redwood City, San
Mateo County Court.

The defendants are Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill Lynch Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC; Morgan Securities LLC; Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.;
and MCS Capital Markets LLC.


GOOGLE INC: Privacy Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose handed Google a major defeat in a
class action privacy complaint for intercepting and scanning
emails before they reach the inbox of the intended recipient.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found that Google's interception
policy may violate the California Wiretap Act, and denied Google's
motion to dismiss.

Google claimed that intercepting emails, scanning their content
and using it for targeted advertising is an ordinary part of how
emails are delivered and received.

Koh rejected that August 12, saying in a 38-page order that
Google's interception and scanning of the emails was not necessary
or intrinsic to the process of email delivery, but was done so
that Google could sell the data it collected or use it for
targeted advertising.

"Under the plain meaning of the Wiretap Act, the 'ordinary course
of business' exception protects an electronic communication
service provider's interception of email where there is 'some
nexus between the need to engage in the alleged interception and
the [provider's] ultimate business, that is, the ability to
provide the underlying service or good,'" she wrote. (Brackets in
complaint.)

Lead plaintiff Daniel Matera claims that Google is intercepting
and scanning emails for commercial purposes.

Google argued that the snooping is an intrinsic part of the
service, for the only way it can keep its email service free and
pay for the cost of maintaining it is through targeted
advertising.

Thus, Google said, targeted advertising, facilitated by
interception and scanning of emails, is part of the ordinary or
routine elements of its business.

Koh appeared to acknowledge that the argument had some validity,
but said it was not appropriate at this stage, as Matera has
plausibly alleged that Google's conduct violates the Wiretap Act.

"Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Google's alleged interceptions
neither facilitate the provision of email services, nor are they
an incidental effect of providing these services," Koh wrote.
"Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court cannot say that
Google's alleged interception of email is within the 'ordinary
course of business' as a matter of law."

In an indication of how new this area of developing law is, Koh's
colleague, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, ruled differently in
a separate Google-related case, interpreting the "ordinary course
of business" exemption in the Wiretap Act as a means of protecting
routine and customary business practices by communications
providers.

Koh disagreed, citing other rulings in which judges said the
businesses themselves should not be allowed to determine the scope
of the law's implications.

"Magistrate Judge Grewal's reading of the 'ordinary course of
business' exception to encompass any customary and routine
business practice, regardless of the nexus to the electronic
communication service, gives too little weight to the word
"ordinary" as well as to the electronic service provider's
particular business," Koh wrote.

The case is not the first against Google for its email targeted
advertising practices.

In 2013, users filed a putative class action against Google,
claiming its email service practices violated wiretap laws. Koh
refused to certify the class in 2014, saying the plaintiffs had
such varying claims they could not be tried as a group.

Matera, who was involved in the initial class action, claimed that
he was never a customer of Google, but because of the ubiquity of
the email service he has sent emails which Google has intercepted,
scanned and analyzed.

Matera also claims that Google interprets the content through an
algorithmic process called Nemo, which helps it determine how to
monetize the data it gathers by selling it or in targeted
advertising.

In a separate case filed this year, prominent universities sued
Google, claiming it provides email services so it can mine the
data of students.

The case captioned, DANIEL MATERA, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.).


GRANITE SOURCE: Faces "Fonseca" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON FONSECA and other similarly-situated individuals, v. GRANITE
SOURCE, CORP. and CARLOS GONZALEZ, individually Case No: 1:16-cv-
23479-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

GRANITE SOURCE is a construction and remodeling Company doing
business in Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. Guardian Protection
Services, Inc. and Security Force, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01253-
MRH (W.D. Penn., August 18, 2016), alleges that the Defendant
commissioned an automated telephone call using prohibited
equipment to send a robocall that promoted its services without
the Plaintiff's prior express written consent.

The Defendants own and operate a residential and commercial
security and safety solution company in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
      MORROW & ARTIM, PC
      304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 209-0656
      E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net



HAIN CELESTIAL: Accused by Lynn of Violating Securities Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY LYNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., IRWIN D. SIMON, and
PASQUALE CONTE, Case No. 2:16-cv-04589-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
August 17, 2016), is a federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants,
who purchased Hain Celestial securities from November 9, 2015,
through August 15, 2016, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities
laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Hain Celestial is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  The Company manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells organic and natural products in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


HARRIS, TX: Faces DBI Investments Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
DBI Investments, LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case No.
2016-54635 (D. Tex., August 17, 2016), is an action for damages as
a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the Plaintiff's
property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
      GREGORY J. DALTON, P.C.
      PO Box 109
      Katy, TX 77492
      Telephone: (281) 391-1985
      Facsimile: (281) 391-1987
      E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARRIS, TX: Faces OM Shanti Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
OM Shanti Hospitality, LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Case No. 2016-54684 (D. Tex., August 17, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the
Plaintiff's property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond Gray, Esq.
      Lorri Michel, Esq.
      Shane Rogers, Esq.
      MICHEL GREY, LLP
      812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 477-0200
      Facsimile: (512) 477-6626
      E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
              lorri@michelgray.com
              shane@michelgray.com


HENSHALL PARKING: Faces "Andrade" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROGELIO ANDRADE v. HENSHALL PARKING STRUCTURES, INC. and JIMMY
HENSHALL a/k/a JIM HENSHALL, Case No: 3:16-cv-02380-G(N.D. Tex.,
August 16, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff, Rogelio Andrade, claims he worked for Defendants as an
employee in their parking garage structure business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
     URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: 214-420-3366
     Fax: 214-206-9802
     E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com
             urquidezlawfirm@gmail.com


HIGHER ONE: "Perez" Securities Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the "Perez" Securities Class Action.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff.

On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an amended complaint. HOH
former shareholder Robert Lee was added as a named plaintiff in
the amended complaint. HOH and certain employees and board members
have been named as defendants.

Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee generally allege that HOH and the other
named defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings
and other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr.
Lee seek to represent a class of any person who purchased HOH
securities between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014. All
defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint.

In response, Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief opposing
dismissal. HOH intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. HOH is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate a range of possible loss.


HIGHER ONE: "Hall" Case Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting
Court approval of the joint stipulation of settlement and release
in the "Hall" class action lawsuit.

On December 28, 2015, Patricia Hall, formerly an employee of
Higher One Machines, Inc. filed a class action captioned Patricia
Hall, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Higher One Machines, Inc., Higher One, Inc., and Higher One
Holdings, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00670-F, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Ms. Hall generally alleges that Higher One, Inc., and the other
named defendants, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and breached her
employment contract for failing to compensate her for her daily
breaks and the time it took her to log-on to and sign-off from
various databases and systems that she needed to access to perform
the functions of her employment.

Ms. Hall seeks to represent a nationwide class and a North
Carolina class of current and former hourly home-based customer
care agents who worked for Higher One, Inc. at any time from 2012
through 2015.

The parties submitted the matter to private mediation and
subsequently entered into a joint stipulation of settlement and
release. The joint stipulation of settlement and release has been
submitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina for approval.

"We have recorded an estimated loss of approximately $1.0 million
related to this matter," the Company said.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of "Donato" Securities Case Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on February 2, 2016, a
complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics,
Inc., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the Arizona District
Court, against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.

The Company said, "This complaint was brought as a purported class
action, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March
3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our
business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the
price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend
this claim."

On Aug. 19, the Defendants Michael L Babich, Darryl S Baker, Alec
Burlakoff, Insys Therapeutics Incorporated, and John N Kapoor
filed a motion to dismiss the case and accompanying Memorandum of
Points and Authorities.

On Aug. 22, the the Court directed the Defendants to submit a
proposed form of order that is not on law firm stationery, in
compliance with Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) regarding their Motion to
Exceed Page Limit.


JOHNSON CONTROL: Shareholders Sue Over Tyco Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Johnson Controls' planned tax inversion via its acquisition
of the Irish-based Tyco International will leave U.S. shareholders
with a huge tax bill and reduced equity in the new company,
investors claim in a federal class action.

In January 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco, two home products
companies, announced a $16.5 billion merger agreement representing
a 13 percent premium to Tyco shareholders.

Johnson Controls and Tyco shareholders voted August 17, to approve
the merger. 97 percent of votes cast at Johnson Controls'
shareholder meeting voted in favor of the transaction, accounting
for 81 percent of outstanding shares.

The combined company will be reorganized under Tyco International
in order to maintain Tyco's Irish legal domicile in Cork, then
renamed Johnson Controls. Johnson Controls shareholders will own
approximately 56 percent of the new company.

This acquisition allows Johnson Controls, Wisconsin's largest
company based on sales, to move its headquarters to Ireland and
take advantage of more favorable corporate tax laws, a strategy
called a corporate inversion.

The proposed merger immediately drew comment from presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton, who said, "I have a detailed and
targeted plan to immediately put a stop to inversions and invest
in the U.S., block deals like Johnson Controls and Tyco, and place
an 'exit tax' on corporations that leave the country to lower
their tax bill."

It also drew criticism from prominent Republican Senator Orrin
Hatch, who said, "Congress ought to examine viable bipartisan
solutions that will effectively target and combat inversions and
not tip the balance to tax-driven foreign acquisitions of U.S.
firms."

Fewer companies have attempted a corporate inversion after the
Obama administration took steps to rein in the practice in 2014,
following Burger King's move to Canada through its acquisition of
Tim Horton's.

The new rules impose heavy penalties for inversions in which
shareholders of the inverting U.S. corporation end up owning 60
percent or more of the new foreign parent corporations. This
change killed a $160 billion proposed merger between U.S.
pharmaceutical company Pfizer and Ireland-based Allergan.

However, the penalties did not eliminate companies' motivation to
move overseas. The average U.S. corporate income tax rate,
combining federal and state rates, is 39 percent, compared with an
average of 25 percent in other developed nations. Ireland taxes
corporations at 12.5 percent, the lowest corporate income tax rate
in the industrialized world.

Arlene Gumm attacked the Johnson Controls inversion with a federal
shareholder class action filed August 16, in Wisconsin. She says
the company's anticipated tax savings are the sole purpose of the
merger and come at the expense of minority taxpaying shareholders.

As a result of the merger, "JCI shareholders will be forced to
recognize capital gains (and for a minority of JCI shareholders to
pay taxes thereon)," the 130-page complaint says.

While the deal has been structured to allow the company and its
executives to avoid the adverse tax consequences imposed by the
Obama administration to discourage such mergers, shareholders
claim they will bear the burden of the corporation's savings.

"JCI's future tax savings and the JCI defendants' avoidance of
other inversion-related adverse tax consequences will come at the
direct expense of its taxpaying shareholders," Gumm says. "JCI
will shift its liability for future U.S. taxes on its foreign
earnings to its taxpaying shareholders by forcing them to pay
capital gains taxes upon consummation of the transaction and at
the direct expense of all JCI public shareholders by improperly
diluting their equity interest in JC plc."

In order to ensure that JCI shareholders will own less than 60
percent of the new company and avoid the inversion penalty, JCI
will pay $3.86 billion in cash to its shareholders in lieu of
stock -- essentially buying back its own shares -- thereby
"manipulating the exchange ratio of JCI and Tyco shares,"
according to the complaint.

The prominent investment blog Seeking Alpha posted an article by
Johnson Controls stockholder Willow Street Investments, which
shares the plaintiffs' dim view of the merger.

"We are less than thrilled with Johnson Controls' actions over the
past several months to 'enhance' shareholder value through a tax
inversion," Willow Street said in the article. "Our trepidation
with the JCI and TYC merger is principally based on the tax bill
that is coming our way when the deal closes."

Gumm's complaint also asserts that Johnson Controls should not be
allowed to escape U.S. taxation after it received $300 million in
grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and state of Michigan to
research and produce hybrid batteries.

The class seeks a court order enjoining the inversion for diluting
minority shareholders' equity in Johnson Controls and damages for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of
contract.

It is represented by K. Scott Wagner with Wagner Law Group in
Milwaukee.

Johnson Controls spokesman Fraser Engerman declined to comment on
the lawsuit but said, "We are moving forward with the merger."

Tyco spokesman Stephen Wasdick declined to comment on the lawsuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over BBSW, Related Derivatives "Conspiracy"
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND,
L.P., AND FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
AUSTRALIA, CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CITIBANK N.A.,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA
BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK
OF CANADA, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY,
MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT
SUISSE AG, BANK OF NEW ZEALAND, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50, Case No. 1:16-cv-06496 (S.D.N.Y., August 16,
2016), alleges that Defendants openly conspired to fix Bank Bill
Swap Reference Rate (BBSW) and the prices of BBSW-based
derivatives.

Defendants are horizontal competitors that deal in financial
products priced, benchmarked, and/or settled based on the Bank
Bill Swap Reference Rate.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Vincent Briganti, Esq.
     Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
     Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
     Raymond Girnys, Esq.
     Christian Levis, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
     One North Broadway
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 997-0500
     Fax: (914) 997-0035
     E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
             ghorn@lowey.com
             pstphillip@lowey.com
             rgirnys@lowey.com
             clevis@lowey.com

        - and -

     Christopher Lovell, Esq.
     Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
     Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq.
     LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
     61 Broadway, Suite 501
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 608-1900
     Fax: (212) 719-4677
     E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
             vestewart@lshllp.com
             bjaccarino@lshllp.com


LA FONDA: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Fla. Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSIMILEY GUZMAN, v. LA FONDA SPORTS GRILL, INC. d/b/a GIRAFA's
SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Corporation, and KALPANA PRADHAN,
individually, Case 9:16-cv-81442-DMM (D. Fla., August 16, 2016),
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests,
costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of
overtime and minimum wage pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Girafas Sports Grill is a latin american restaurant located at
5096 Forest Hill Blvd #900, West Palm Beach, FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ricardo J. Rodriguez Vacas, Esq.
     RODRIGUEZ VACAS LAW FIRM LLC
     2122 S.W. 67th Avenue, Suite B
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone (305) 677-9951
     Fax: (305) 676-9067
     E-mail: Legal@rodriguezvacas.com

        - and -

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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Remand Miller Energy Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
plaintiffs' motions to remand class action complaints related to
Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings remain
pending.

Two purported class action complaints were filed in November 2015
in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's
auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings
in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was
one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of
certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in January
2016, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand, which are currently
pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Plains All American Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
motions to dismiss are currently pending in the lawsuit against
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that
in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to
the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters
of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and
integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are
liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as
other relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending. The
Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Suit Against Securities America Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
Securities America was named in September 2015 as a defendant in
lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a broker-dealer
(U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota) and a
putative class action by the shareholders of that broker-dealer
(U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). The lawsuits
allege that certain of the debtor broker-dealer's assets were
transferred to Securities America in June 2015 for inadequate
consideration. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, and other relief. The Company believes the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
them.


LADY FORTUNES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Gomez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yanet Mendez Gomez v. Lady Fortunes, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC630938 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 17, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay timely wages,
failure to pay overtime wages and failure to issue accurate
itemized wage statements.

Lady Fortunes, Inc. owns and operates a food manufacturing and
processing company in the city of Canoga Park, County of Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213)738-5225

         - and -

      Daniel J. Goularte, Esq.
      GOULARTE LAW FIRM
      7853 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite G
      La Mesa, CA 91942
      Telephone: (619) 303-710
      E-mail: goularte.law@gmail.com


LAS VEGAS SANDS: No Hearing Date Set for Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no hearing date for the
summary judgment has been set in a class action lawsuit.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S.
District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional
portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class
period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22,
2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March
11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary
judgment on April 8, 2016. No hearing date for the summary
judgment has been set.

Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is
currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of
this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The
Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LEWIS CASING: Faces "Calvillo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIO CALVILLO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
Section 216(b) v. LEWIS CASING CREWS, INC., and PATRICK LEWIS,
Individually, Case No: 2:16-cv-00921 (D. N. Mex., August 12,
2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants have been involved in oilfield casing services in
oilfields throughout the United States, including in New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JACK SIEGEL, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204
     E-mail: www.4overtimelawyer.com

        - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com


M.L. ZAGER: "Corso" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
JUDIS CORSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. M.L. ZAGER, P.C., a New York professional
corporation; JOSEPH P. LOUGHLIN individually and in his official
capacity; ROBERT BRUCE HUNTER, individually and in his official
capacity; and DOES 1 through 1 0, inclusive, Case No: 16-CV-298607
(Cal. Super., County of Santa Clara, August 16, 2016), is a
consumer class action brought pursuant to the California Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California Civil Code.

Defendant, M.L. ZAGER, P.C. is in the business of collecting
defaulted consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
     Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
     Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
     12 South First Street, Suite 1014
     San Jose, CA 95113-2418
     Phone: (408) 294-6100
     Fax: (408) 294-6190
     E-mail: fred.schwitm@sjconsumerlaw.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court
has scheduled the fairness hearing for November 21, 2016, in the
securities class action complaints.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April
21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police
Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et
al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) was filed against the Company, certain of
the Company's current directors and former and now-former
officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial
firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock
offerings.

On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were
consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in
the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative
subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6,
2013 public stock offering.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of the
putative class for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company
and certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A)
of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated amended
complaint also asserts claims on behalf the subclass for (i)
alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the
Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters
of the Company's public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations
of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (iii)
alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the
Company, certain of the Company's former officers, and a
shareholder of the Company.

On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor
Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Class Action Litigation").

On February 5, 2016, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, as well as the stipulation and agreement of settlement
and related exhibits. The stipulation and agreement of settlement
releases all claims asserted against all defendants in the Class
Action Litigation except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P.
and does not release claims asserted in the derivative actions
Hemmingson, et al. v. Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK)
(Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et
al., No. 1-15-CV-281284 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.).
The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides for an
aggregate settlement payment by the Company of $23.5 million,
which includes all attorneys' fees, costs of administration and
plaintiffs' out-of-pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory
awards and disbursements. The Company expects the settlement will
be fully funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the
dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named
individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any liability
or wrongdoing attributed to them.

On April 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 18, 2016, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement. The court has scheduled the fairness hearing
for November 21, 2016. The settlement remains subject to
stockholder notice, court approval and other customary conditions.

The Company has recorded the $23.5 million of the obligation as
accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December
31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The Company has recorded $29.6 million of the
proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a
deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29.6 million
were deposited into the Company's escrow account during the first
quarter of 2016. As a result, the Company reclassified the $29.6
million deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted
cash as of March 31, 2016.


MARUYASU INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Auto Steel Tubes "Price Fixing"
--------------------------------------------------------------
HALLEY ASCHER, GREGORY ASKEN, MELISSA BARRON, KIMBERLY BENNETT,
DAVID BERNSTEIN, RON BLAU, TENISHA BURGOS, KENT BUSEK, JENNIFER
CHASE, RITA CORNISH, NATHAN CROOM, LORI CURTIS, JESSICA DECASTRO,
THERESIA DILLARD, ALENA FARRELL, JANE FITZGERALD, CARROLL GIBBS,
DORI GILELS, JASON GRALA, IAN GROVES, CURTIS GUNNERSON, PAUL
GUSTAFSON, TOM HALVERSON, CURTIS HARR, ANDREW HEDLUND, GARY ARTHUR
HERR, JOHN HOLLINGSWORTH, CAROL ANN KASHISHIAN, ELIZABETH KAUFMAN,
ROBERT KLINGLER, KELLY KLOSTERMAN, JAMES MAREAN, REBECCA LYNN
MORROW, EDWARD MUSCARA, STACEY NICKELL, SOPHIE O'KEEFE-ZELMAN,
ROGER OLSON, WILLIAM PICOTTE, WHITNEY PORTER, CINDY PRINCE, JANNE
RICE, ROBERT RICE, JR., FRANCES GAMMELL-ROACH, DARREL SENIOR,
MEETESH SHAH, DARCY SHERMAN, ERICA SHOAF, ARTHUR STUKEY, KATHLEEN
TAWNEY, JANE TAYLOR, KEITH UEHARA, MICHAEL WICK, PHILLIP YOUNG, on
Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, v.
MARUYASU INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. And CURTIS-MARUYASU AMERICA, INC.,
Case No: 2:16-cv-12949-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich., August 12, 2016),
alleges conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain
and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Automotive Steel Tubes.

Defendant Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation
with its principal place of business in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture,
Japan. Defendant Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. -- directly and/or
through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled
-- manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Steel Tubes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Devon P. Allard, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Phone: (248) 841-2200
     Fax: (248) 652-2852
     E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
             dpa@millerlawpc.com

        - and -

     Hollis Salzman, Esq.
     Bernard Persky, Esq.
     William V. Reiss, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 980-7400
     Fax: (212) 980-7499
     E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
             WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

        - and -

     Steven N. Williams, Esq.
     Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
     Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
     San Francisco Airport Office Center
     840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Phone: (650) 697-6000
     Fax: (650) 697-0577
     E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
             dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com
             etran@cpmlegal.com

        - and -

     Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
     Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
     Phone: (310) 789-3100
     Fax: (310) 789-3150
     E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

        - and-

     Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
     Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
     Omar Ochoa, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1000 Louisiana St. Suite 5100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 651-9366
     Fax: (713) 654-6666
     E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
             clangham@susmangodfrey.com
             oochoa@susmangodfrey.com


MCDONALD CORP: Must Defend Against Wage Theft Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
wage-theft class action against McDonald's will proceed, a federal
judge ruled, though he remained unconvinced that McDonald's Corp.
exercises enough control over working conditions in its franchises
to be liable for fair wage and overtime claims.

"McDonald's did not exercise direct or indirect control over
plaintiffs' wages, hours, or working conditions," U.S. District
Judge Richard Seeborg wrote in his August 16 order, adding that
the corporation's operating standards protect the integrity of the
McDonald's brand, but exclude hiring, firing, discipline and other
personnel decisions.

But he also said a jury could find McDonald's a joint employer
under the "ostensible agency" theory, since workers hold the
reasonable belief that they are employed by McDonald's. "Though it
is a close call, particularly as plaintiffs are long-term
employees, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
plaintiffs, a jury could reasonably find McDonald's to be a joint
employer by virtue of an ostensible agency relationship," Seeborg
said.

Led by cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith
Zarate, the class sued McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes
in March 2014, claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and
were not paid for all the hours they worked because the McDonald's
computer system killed overtime from their timecards.

The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and
San Leandro since 2010. Seeborg noted that Haynes controlled
hiring, firing, discipline, wages and general working conditions,
much like the franchisees in Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., another
wage and hour class action filed in the Northern District of
California.

The Ochoa case is set to go to trial on Dec. 5 on the same
ostensible agency theory.

"Looking at the record, there is considerable evidence, albeit
subject to dispute, that McDonalds [sic] caused plaintiffs
reasonably to believe Haynes was acting as its agent," Seeborg
wrote. "To begin, plaintiffs uniformly declare they believed both
they and Haynes worked for McDonalds. They also must wear
McDonalds uniforms, prepare and serve McDonalds food in McDonalds
packaging, and greet customers by saying 'Welcome to McDonald's.'
Plaintiffs' managers, who were subject to training by McDonalds
and interacted regularly with McDonalds consultants, wore
McDonalds' uniforms, and referred to themselves as 'working for
McDonald's.'"

"Although plaintiffs were disappointed that Judge Seeborg did not
deny McDonald's summary judgment motion in full, it should make no
practical difference," class attorney Michael Rubin said in an
email. "If plaintiffs prevail on our ostensible agency theory at
trial, we will have no need to appeal the ruling on our other
liability theories. And if we do not prevail at trial on
ostensible agency, we have very strong grounds for appeal given
the many disputed issues of fact that we believe are material to
McDonald's 'joint employer' status."

McDonald's attorney Lawrence Di Nardo did not respond to an email
request for comment.

The case captioned, GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-cv-02096-RS
(N.D. Cal.).


MDL 2196: Tridien Medical Received $1.2MM from Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Compass Diversified Holdings and Compass Group Diversified
Holdings LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that during the second
quarter of 2016, Tridien Medical, Inc. received approximately $1.2
million related to the settlement of a class action lawsuit
against manufacturers and suppliers of polyurethane foam. The
class action lawsuit alleged that the defendant individuals and
businesses had engaged in a conspiracy to increase the prices of
flexible polyurethane foam and not compete for customers. The
defendants settled the lawsuit in 2015, and payment of the
settlement was sent to claimants during the second quarter of
2016. Tridien recorded the settlement received as "other income"
in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

The Company is a controlling owner of eight businesses, or
reportable operating segments, at June 30, 2016. The segments are
as follows: The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. ("Ergobaby"), Liberty Safe
and Security Products, Inc. ("Liberty Safe" or "Liberty"), Fresh
Hemp Foods Ltd. ("Manitoba Harvest"), Compass AC Holdings, Inc.
("ACI" or "Advanced Circuits"), AMT Acquisition Corporation
("Arnold" or "Arnold Magnetics"), Clean Earth Holdings, Inc.
("Clean Earth"), Sterno Products, LLC ("Sterno Products") and
Tridien Medical, Inc. ("Tridien").

The Company also owns a non-controlling interest of approximately
33.1% in Fox Factory Holding Corp. ("FOX") which is accounted for
as an equity method investment. Compass Group Management LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("CGM" or the "Manager"),
manages the day to day operations of the Company and oversees the
management and operations of the Company's businesses pursuant to
a management services agreement ("MSA").


MDL 2545: 195 TRT Claims Pending vs. AbbVie
-------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that product liability cases are
pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other
manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of
certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood
clots. Approximately 3,600 claims are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545.
Approximately 195 claims are pending in various state courts.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.


METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Action Still Pending in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed
April 17, 2014), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account,
known as a Total Control Accounts, to pay death benefits under an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.
The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement
option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on
accounts owned by members of the putative class. The court denied
MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Class Action Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------------
The appeal taken by Plaintiffs in the Robainas, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014),
remains pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").

Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both
of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a
result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


METLIFE INC: "Intoccia" Class Action Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------------
An appeal taken by Plaintiffs from the dismissal of the case,
Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., April
20, 2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court
consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated,
amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its
statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions
with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities. The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss,
adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. Plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


METLIFE INC: Class Member in "Fauley" Case Seeks Review
-------------------------------------------------------
One class member is seeking further review by the Illinois Supreme
Court of the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County,
Ill., July 3, 2014), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a
nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which
MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to
fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. On March
23, 2016, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial
court's order. One class member is seeking further review by the
Illinois Supreme Court.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that sales practices cases
against Sun Life are ongoing.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred
to Sun Life. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had
given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because
it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss,
granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties agreed to
consider the indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging
sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits.

These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss arising from this litigation.


METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Action Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015),
remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Martin" Action Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the case, Martin v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015),
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On
April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice appealing this ruling.


METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Still Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed,
December 3, 2015) remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife
uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under
which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a
stable value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed
March 23, 2016), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting
of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay
at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased
after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be
increased for these class members and/or that marketing material
with respect to these two features was misleading as to MLIC's
right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as
recessionary and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend
this action vigorously.


MID-CENTURY: "Cumley" Class Suit Removed to District of Montana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Cumley, individually
and on behalf of his minor child, Tye Cumley, and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Mid-Century Insurance Company and John
Does I-XXX, Case No. DDV-16-00573, was removed from the First
Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County to the U.S. District
Court, District Of Montana (Helena). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00080-SHE to the proceeding.

Mid-Century Insurance Company provides property and casualty
insurance coverage for Inland Marine, robbery, felony, burglary,
personal lines, plate glass, selected bonds, and floaters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael C. Doggett, Esq.
      Rune Vander Wey, Esq.
      DOGGETT LAW OFFICE
      30 South Ewing St. Suite 100
      Helena, MT 59601
      Telephone: (406) 442-1160
      Facsimile: (406) 442-8076
      E-mail: mike@doggettlawoffice.net
              rune@doggettlawoffice.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Katelyn S. Werner, Esq.
      GORDON & REES, LLP
      555 17th Street, Suite 3400
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 200-6854
      Facsimile: (303) 534-5161
      E-mail: kwerner@gordonrees.com


MILLER'S ALE: Faces "Bolt" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA BOLT, and other similarly situated individuals, v. MILLER'S
ALE HOUSE, INC. Case No: 1:16-cv-23477-UU (S.D. Fla., August 12,
2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Miller's Ale House is a Florida-based restaurant chain which
serves steaks, chicken, burgers, salads, seafood, and similar
items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michelle L. Grosser, Esq.
     J. Lindsey Chong, Esq.
     GROSSER CHONG, PLLC
     901 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 305
     Miami, FL 33134
     Phone: (786) 505-5257
     Fax: (786) 513-8544
     E-mail: michelle@grosserchong.com
             lindsey@grosserchong.com

        - and -

     R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
     SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
     1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 329
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (786) 708-7550
     E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss & Transfer Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and
Sandoz Inc.'s motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer a class
action case are pending.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The
complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from selling
generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude
competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation
of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Hearings on the
motions were held before a U.S. magistrate in April 2016 and
February 2016, respectively. These motions are pending before the
magistrate and subject to review by the court. While the outcome
of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this
suit is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself
in this litigation.


NATALEX REST: "Aragon-Padilla" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeronimo Aragon-Padilla, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Natalex Rest. Inc. d/b/a Burrito Loco and Geminiano
Sanz, in his individual and professional capacity, Case No: 1:16-
cv-06444 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2016), was brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act in order to remedy Defendants' alleged
wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's lawfully earned wages and
overtime compensation as well as the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations for violations of minimum wages,
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, meal break violations and
notice requirements.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, Natalex Rest. Inc. d/b/a
Burrito Loco and Geminiano Sanz as a cook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
     3510 Broadway, Suite 201
     Astoria, NY 11106
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Fax: (718) 777-0599
     E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Heard Arguments on Rikers Island Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
New York City insists that it's reformed Rikers Island enough to
dodge a class action seeking court oversight over systemic rape in
the women's jail, but the Second Circuit sharply questioned that
premise at a hearing on August 17.

Months after Manhattan-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara ripped
the juvenile detention center there as a "Lord of the Flies"
setting, two Jane Does brought alarming claims depicting the
island's Rose M. Singer Center as an equally sadistic environment.
The woman who brought the lawsuit said she was sexually assaulted
"as many as four times a week."

Accusing New York City of tolerating rampant abuse by at least
eight guards, the women singled out corrections officer Benny
Santiago for what they claim to be particularly horrific conduct.

The lawsuit also claimed that the officers repeatedly punish
inmates with anal rape, masturbate in the open areas of
dormitories, and continue to collect a paycheck even after their
sexual assaults lead to pregnancy.

This past January, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein found
that certifying the case as a class action would be "extremely
difficult" given the short-term jail's transient population --
presenting hurdles that could complicate the women's quest for
compensation for their "serious and troubling allegations."

Appealing that ruling, the women's attorney Mitchell Lowenthal
told the Second Circuit on August 17, "We think that this is a
quintessential civil-rights class action seeking institutional
reform."

Lowenthal -- a partner at Manhattan-based Cleary Gottlieb --
added, "If this plaintiff, who allegedly suffered significant
injury, is not entitled to be a class representative, who could
possibly represent this class?"

At the roughly 30-minute hearing, a majority of the three-judge
panel appeared to sympathize with that position in arguments that
largely swirled around what has changed at Rikers since the women
brought their claims.

City lawyer Richard Dearing noted that the allegations in the
lawsuit took place between 2009 and 2012. He insisted that New
York and the nation have made strides toward complying with the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) since that time.

Emphasizing that the women filed their case 2 1/2 years later,
Dearing said: "It's not just the passage of time [that is
significant]."

Shortly after the Justice Department issued PREA regulations in
2012, New York City applied for a grant to move toward complying
with them. The Department of Corrections got a new commissioner,
Joseph Ponte, in 2014, and the city hired a consultant to advise
them on the regulations that year.

"All of this is before a complaint is ever filed," Dearing noted.

Events continued to change quickly after the women filed their
complaint on May 19, 2015.

At the time her lawyers filed the complaint, Jane Doe 1 had been
eight days away from being released from the Rose M. Singer
Center.

The city says that fact undermines her as a representative of the
class, but Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler noted that all inmates of
the Rose M. Singer Center exit the jail quickly.

"Well, it's a short-term facility, isn't it?" she asked.

For Dearing, this showed that the plaintiff has "at best, a
peppercorn of standing on the injunctive claim."

Skeptical, Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch said, "I don't understand
that. You're saying it's not typical because there's this future
aspect, and you're saying that you cleaned up since she was in the
jail."

Disputing that premise, attorney Lowenthal noted that officials
have said that sexual assault in New York prisons is, if anything,
a growing and underreported problem.

The city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reported 116
allegations of sexual harassment and assault behind bars in all of
2014.

There have been 118 such reports in the first quarter of this year
alone, a correctional doctor told the City Council at a hearing on
May 26.

New York's public advocate Letitia James and nine City Council
members filed a friend-of-the-court brief warning the Second
Circuit that refusing to certify the class action will have "dire
consequences for the vulnerable class members."

"Allowing these class claims to see the light of day serves the
important social purpose of removing stigma and creating an
environment where women have less fear of reporting and more
confidence in our justice system," their 18-page brief states.

James, the city watchdog, also filed a separate brief bemoaning
that the public's understanding of the problem suffers from a
"lack of transparency" and relies upon only a "patchwork of local
data."

Bharara also blasted the Rikers Island's secretive culture in a
lawsuit targeting excessive force in the juvenile prisons. The
case eventually led to a settlement with New York Mayor Bill de
Blasio in October.

Meanwhile, Lowenthal said, impunity inside the city jails and
prisons persists.

"What we're going to try is the conditions in the jail, and there
continue to be reports even as we speak of women being raped in
the Rose M. Singer Center," he said.

On a systemic level, Rikers still has not tackled the basic reform
of the gender of the guards, Lowenthal said.

"None of these rules change the fact, the alarming fact, that men
guard the women," he said, calling this "bad policy."

He added, "Further, we think state law mandates that women guard
women."

As the hearing ended, the panel reserved decision and Judge Pooler
thanked the parties for their "lively arguments."


NEWLINK GENETICS: To Defend Against "Abramson" Action in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newlink Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Trevor Abramson
filed on May 12, 2016, a putative securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial
Officer John B. Henneman III, and the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer Gordon H. Link, Jr., or collectively, the
Defendants, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al.,
Case 1:16-cv-3545, or the Action. The complaint in the Action
alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements that caused losses to the Company's investors.

In particular, the plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made
material misstatements or omissions related to the efficacy of the
drug algenpantucel-L. The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged
damages in the complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, he seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company disputes the claims in the Action and intends to
defend against them vigorously.

Newlink Genetics is a clinical stage immuno-oncology company
focused on discovering and developing novel immunotherapeutic
products for the treatment of cancer with an expertise in
infectious diseases that drives specific opportunities.


NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against Former Employees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against a class action lawsuit by former employees.

The Company said, "on March 10, 2016, Carrie Castillo, Anastassia
Letourneau and Jacquelyn Myhre, former employees of the Company,
filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit against the
Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois and Minnesota wage laws (the "Labor Laws") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiffs filed the case on their behalf and on behalf of all
assistant general managers employed by the Company since January
5, 2013 whom the Company classified as exempt employees, and they
allege that the Company violated the Labor Laws by not paying
overtime compensation to its assistant general managers. The
plaintiffs are seeking, on behalf of themselves and members of the
putative class, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and available penalties under applicable state laws, a declaratory
judgment, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. This case
is at an early stage, and the Company is therefore unable to make
a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of losses, if
any, that might arise from this matter. The Company intends to
vigorously defend this action."


NOODLES & COMPANY: "Carter" Class Suit Dismissed in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
by Tammie Carter has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On February 10, 2016, Tammie Carter, a former
employee of the Company, filed a purported collective and class
action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Order in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff
filed the case on her behalf and on behalf of all assistant
general managers employed by us during the past three years whom
the Company classified as exempt employees, and she alleged that
the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado
Wage Order by not paying overtime compensation to our assistant
general managers. The plaintiff sought, on behalf of herself and
members of the putative class, unpaid overtime compensation,
damages (including liquidated and/or punitive damages), a
declaratory judgment, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and
costs. The case was dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice
on June 29, 2016."


NORTHERN OIL: Faces "Fries" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., Michael L. Reger, and
Thomas W. Stoelk, Case No. 1:16-cv-06543 (S.D.N.Y., August 18,
2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. is an independent energy company
engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and
production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: 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
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled in October
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing for final
court approval of the settlement is scheduled in October 2016, but
could be delayed by circumstances beyond the Company's control.

On February 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Term
Sheet (the "Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously
reported putative securities class action consolidated lawsuit.
The litigation was brought against the Company and certain of the
Company's officers (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of a
class consisting of persons or entities that publicly traded the
Company's common stock during the period from May 4, 2011 through
January 17, 2014 and were allegedly damaged thereby. In May 2016,
the court issued preliminary approval of the settlement.

The terms of the Agreement provide for, among other things, a
settlement payment by, or on behalf of, the Company of $47
million, which the Company recorded as a short-term liability in
its consolidated balance sheet. As expected, the Company's
insurers fully funded the settlement payment in an escrow account
in June 2016, and the Company maintained the corresponding amount
as a short-term receivable, which it had recorded during the first
quarter of 2016. There was no net impact on the Company's
consolidated statement of income.

The settlement remains subject to court approval and may be
cancelled by the Defendants at their sole election in certain
limited circumstances. A hearing for final court approval of the
settlement is scheduled in October 2016, but could be delayed by
circumstances beyond the Company's control. Subsequent to final
approval of the settlement by the court, the litigation will be
dismissed, with prejudice.


OCEAN DETAILING: Faces "Datilus" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanneau Datilus, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc. and Andrew Heidebrecht,
Case No. 0:16-cv-61993-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an auto detailing company servicing auto
dealers across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.,
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


OK FOODS: "Cato" Class Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to W.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled DARRELL CATO, JEFFREY
BIGGS, MARGEE WILLIAMS, MARIO MALLETT individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. O.K. FOODS, INC., Case No. CV-
16-00679, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sebastian County,
Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas (Fort Smith).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-02202-PKH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs contend that the action is filed for unpaid donning
and doffing.  The Plaintiffs are hourly production employees at
O.K. Foods, Inc.'s Fort Smith food processing and manufacturing
plants.  They allege that OK Foods' employees are not paid for
approximately six to seven hours per week they spend working, and
they bring the action to receive the wages they are owed.

OK Foods is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of
business in Arkansas.  OK Foods owns and operates several chicken-
processing facilities in Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary William Udouj, Sr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GARY W. UDOUJ, P.A.
          5 Court Street
          P.O. Box 2102
          Fort Smith, AR 72901
          Telephone: (479) 782-5400
          Facsimile: (479) 782-8445
          E-mail: gudouj1@gmail.com

               - and -

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATE P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net

               - and -

          Stephen M. Sharum, Esq.
          SHARUM LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 1951
          19 Court Street
          Fort Smith, AR 72902
          Telephone: (479) 785-0123
          Facsimile: (479) 785-4518
          E-mail: stevesharum@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Raymond Carroll, Esq.
          Jeff Fletcher, Esq.
          Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK, LLP
          234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 973-4200
          Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
          E-mail: jr.carroll@kutakrock.com
                  jeff.fletcher@kutakrock.com
                  scott.jackson@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Jess L. Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: jess.askew@kutakrock.com


ORACLE: 2 Class Suits Over Inflated Revenue Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Oracle quietly ended two class actions claiming that the
company lied about its cloud services revenue to artificially
inflate its stock price, but still faces claims by a former senior
accountant who blew the whistle on the alleged fraud.

Former Oracle finance manager Svetlana Blackburn sued the Redwood
City-based software giant in federal court in June, claiming
Oracle fired her last October for refusing to fudge financial
reports and threatening to expose the scam.  Blackburn said she
was ordered to add millions of dollars in unsupported revenue from
Oracle's cloud services to financial reports, knowing the false
numbers would be "used to paint a rosier picture than actually
existed" in SEC filings and earnings calls.

After she lodged her complaint, two class actions were filed
against the company.

Investor Grover Klarfield sued Oracle on securities fraud claims
on June 2.  Former Oracle employee Joseph Tomassini then sued the
company on claims it made imprudent investments with its
employees' retirements savings plan dollars on June 24.

On August 16, both plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
actions. Attorneys for Klarfield and Tomassini did not return
multiple phone calls seeking comment on the dismissals on August
16 and 17.

Despite ending the two class actions, Oracle must still face
Blackburn's claims of wrongful termination and whistleblower
retaliation.

In a court document filed earlier this month, Oracle said it fired
Blackburn due to "ongoing performance issues" and not because she
threatened to expose the company's fraudulent accounting
practices.

When reached by phone, Oracle attorney Kenneth Herzinger would not
say whether the two dismissed class actions were settled out of
court.  The Oracle attorney deferred all comments to the company's
public relations team. Oracle spokeswomen Deborah Hellinger and
Jessica Moore did not return phone calls seeking comment on August
16 and 17.

Klarfield is represented by Jennifer Pafti of Pomerantz in Beverly
Hills.

Tomassini is represented by Patrice Bishop of Stull, Stull and
Brody in Beverly Hills.

Herzinger is with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in San Francisco.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff to Appeal Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that lead plaintiff has
filed a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint but to
proceed directly to an appeal of the Court's decision dismissing
the consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the
United States District Court, for the Southern District of
California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following
day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz
v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims.

On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint
purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results and
termination of the Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or
injunctive relief.

On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On May 19, 2016, the District Court
granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing portions of the
consolidated complaint with prejudice and portions without
prejudice. The Court granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an
amended complaint with respect to those portions not dismissed
with prejudice.

On June 16, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice of intent not to
file an amended complaint but to proceed directly to an appeal of
the Court's decision dismissing the consolidated complaint. As a
result, the court entered judgment dismissing the consolidated
complaint with prejudice on June 27, 2016. Lead plaintiff has not
yet filed a Notice of Appeal.

Although management believes that any appeal would lack merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously, there are uncertainties
inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the
outcome. 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 attorney's fees.


OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Hunter" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD T. HUNTER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, V. OUTERWALL, INC., JEFFREY J. BROWN, NELSON C. CHAN,
NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E.
PRUSCH, and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case 2:16-cv-01285 (W.D. Wash.,
August 16, 2016), seeks to enjoin the Proposed sale of the Company
to affiliates of certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo
Global Management VIII, L.P., or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Individual Defendants' violations of these laws.

Outerwall Inc. -- http://www.outerwall.com/-- delivers retail
products and services to consumers via self-service interactive
kiosks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger Townsend, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: 206 652 8660
     Fax: 206 652 8290
     E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

        - and -

     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4292
     Fax: (202) 333-2121


OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Abbas" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global
---------------------------------------------------------------
SYED ABBAS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. OUTERWALL INC., JEFFREY J. BROWN, NELSON C. CHAN,
NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E.
PRUSCH, and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case No. 2:16-cv-1275 (D. Wash.,
August 12, 2016), was brought on behalf of a purported class of
public stockholders of Outerwall who  are opposing a proposed
acquisition of Outerwall by affiliates of Apollo Global
Management, LLC through Apollo Management's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Aspen Parent, Inc.

Outerwall, Inc., a Delaware corporation, delivers retail product
and services to consumers via self-service interactive kiosks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: 206-652-8660
     Fax: 206-652-8290
     E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq.
     WEISS LAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025


OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Baumgartner" Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BAUMGARTNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. OUTERWALL, INC., NELSON C. CHAN, JEFFREY J.
BROWN, NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK
E. PRUSCH and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case No: 2:16-cv-01281 (W.D.
Wash., August 15, 2016), alleges violations of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act in relation to a proposed transaction pursuant to
which Outerwall and its subsidiary Redbox Automated Retail, LLC
will be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC.

Outerwall Inc. is an American company with a network of movie and
video game rental kiosks as well as coin-cashing machines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger Townsend, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: 206-652-8660
     Fax: 206-652-8290
     E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

        - and -

     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: (610) 667-6200
     Fax: (610) 667-9029
     E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


PEOPLES BANCORP: NC Business Court Dissolved Appellate Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
North Carolina Business Court has entered an order dissolving the
appellate stay, effectively ending a class action suit against the
Bank.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleged
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It sought the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff sought to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered
the case dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiff appealed to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals which, on May 3, 2016, in a
unanimous opinion, affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit by the
North Carolina Business Court.  On June 16, 2016, the North
Carolina Business Court entered an order dissolving the appellate
stay, effectively ending the suit against the Bank.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in "Bushansky" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company has reached a memorandum of understanding in the class
action by Stephen Bushansky.

On May 9, 2016 a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District
at Nashville, styled Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, versus Avenue Financial
Holdings, Inc. Ronald L. Samuels, Kent Cleaver, David G. Anderson,
Agenia Clark, James F. Deutsch, Marty Dickens, Patrick G. Emery,
Nancy Falls, Joseph C. Galante, David Ingram. Stephen Moore, Ken
Robold, Karen Saul and Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.,
Defendants (Case No. 16-489-IV), alleging that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving the sale of Avenue for an inadequate price as the result
of a flawed sales process, agreeing to the inclusion of
unreasonable deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement,
approving the Avenue Merger in order to receive benefits not
equally shared by all other shareholders of Avenue, and issuing
materially misleading and incomplete disclosures to Avenue's
shareholders. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Avenue and
Pinnacle for aiding and abetting the individual defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff purports to seek class-wide relief, including but
not limited to: monetary damages, and an award of interest,
attorney's fees, and expenses. On May 18, 2016, the Bushansky
litigation was transferred to the Davidson County, Tennessee
Business Court Pilot Project (Business Court).

To avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, on June 10, 2016, the defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff regarding
settlement of the Bushansky litigation (the "memorandum of
understanding"). The memorandum of understanding outlines the
terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Bushansky
action. In consideration for the settlement of the Bushansky
litigation and release of claims contemplated thereby, the parties
to the action agreed that Avenue and Pinnacle would make certain
supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus. The memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon
a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the Business Court
for approval at the earliest practicable time.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to approval by the
Business Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy of such settlement. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, following final approval by the Business Court, the
action will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the Business Court will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such
event, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no
force and effect.

Pinnacle Financial believes the claims asserted in the Bushansky
action are without merit and intends to continue to defend the
litigation. At this time though, it is not possible to predict the
outcome of the proceeding or its impact on Pinnacle Financial.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Muir and Rosen Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the case, Muir v.
PRIAC, et al., has been removed from the Court's docket after the
Court granted the unopposed motion to consolidate the Muir and
Rosen lawsuits.

In February 2016, a putative class action complaint entitled
Randall C. Muir, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and All Other Similarly Situated
Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB, and Prudential
Investment Management Services, LLC, was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut.

The complaint: (1) seeks certification of a class of all Employee
Retirement Income Security Act covered employee pension benefit
plans with which Prudential has maintained a contractual
relationship based on a group annuity contract or group funding
agreement; and (2) alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary obligations by accepting revenue sharing payments from
investment vehicles in its separate accounts and/or by accepting
excessive compensation by crediting rates on stable value accounts
that are less than PRIAC's internal rate of return.

In April 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to consolidate
this lawsuit with the Rosen lawsuit. In May 2016, the Court
granted the unopposed motion to consolidate the Muir and Rosen
lawsuits. The Muir case has been removed from the Court's docket.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement of Sterling Case Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in the case, City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., et al.

The case concerns financial disclosures concerning death benefits
and unclaimed property.

In April 2016, the parties entered into a proposed agreement to
resolve the class action claims asserted in the amended complaint.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order preliminarily
approving the settlement in accordance with the parties' April
2016 Stipulation of Settlement. In June 2016, the Court issued an
order "preliminarily approving settlement and providing for
notice."


QUAKER OATS: "Dickson" Consumer Lawsuit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit ATHENA DICKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No: 4:16-cv-
00887-DW, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri at Kansas City to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, according to a court filing
dated August 12, 2016.

The case asserts claims for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment, based on
allegedly deceptive or misleading flavor labeling on certain
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Rottinghaus, Esq.
     Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
     WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
     4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: 816-701-1100
     Fax: 816-701-1174
     E-mail: trottinghaus@wcllp.com
             dbeckman@wcllp.com

        - and -

     Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
     Jason R. Meltzer, Esq.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 955-8500
     Fax: (202) 467-0539
     E-mail: ATulumello@gibsondunn.com
             JMeltzer@gibsondunn.com

        - and -

     Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
     THE BURGESS LAW FIRM, P.C.
     4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 100
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: (816) 471-1700
     Fax: (816) 471-1701
     E-mail: mitch@burgesslawkc.com

        - and -

     Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
     RALPH K. PHALEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 140
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: (816) 589-0753
     Fax: (816) 471-1701
     E-mail: phalenlaw@yahoo.com

        - and -

     Phyllis A. Norman, Esq.
     THE NORMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
     4310 Madison, Suite 120
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: (816) 895-8989
     Fax: (816) 895-8988
     E-mail: phyllis@pnormanlaw.com

        - and -

     Ben Barnow, Esq.
     Erich P. Schork, Esq.
     BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 621-2000
     Fax: (312) 641-5504
     E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com


RETROPHIN INC: Settlement in "Kazanchyan" Okayed, Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has approved
the settlement in the case, Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, directed
implementation of the settlement, and ordered the action dismissed
with prejudice.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was
filed in the Southern District of New York against the same
defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The
complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014.

In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint
lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the
two related actions. On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated
the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead
counsel.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4,
2015, which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and
Mr. Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson,
Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants.
On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court
ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The
remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully-
briefed as of October 29, 2015.

On December 1, 2015, counsel jointly informed the Court that the
parties had reached a comprehensive settlement, subject to Court
approval. On January 29, 2016, the parties filed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement and supporting papers,
including a stipulation of settlement.

On February 2, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement. On June 10, 2016, the Court approved the settlement,
directed implementation of the settlement, and ordered the action
dismissed with prejudice. The settlement amount has been paid by
the Company's insurer.


REX ENERGY: Appeal in Cardinale Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a three-judge panel of
the Pennsylvania Superior Court has not ruled on the appeal in the
Cardinale class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in
a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and
each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order
for payment and delivered the documents to representatives of
Western. We rejected these leases and never signed them on behalf
of the Company. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the
rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as
well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees."

"We filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to the
plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various responsive
filings throughout the first quarter of 2012.

"In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with
prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between
us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
during the second half of 2012. In May 2013, the Superior Court
reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the Billotte
case contained the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale
case. The Meeker case is not a class action, but the claims are
similar to those in Cardinale and the plaintiffs would be included
in a class under Cardinale and Billotte if one were certified.

"These two additional lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons
in light of the dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency
of the appeal. Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases
were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale
case. When the Cardinale case was remanded, we agreed to
consolidate the Billotte and Cardinale cases; the cases have
proceeded as Cardinale. The Meeker case remains stayed, and has
not been consolidated.

"In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case.  In
July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs served notice of their appeal of that
decision in August 2015 and filed the appeal in September 2015.

"In June 2016, we and the plaintiffs each presented our arguments
on the appeal before a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania
Superior Court.  To date, the court has not ruled on the appeal.
We expect to receive the court's ruling on the appeal in the
second half of 2016.

"We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At
this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses, if any."


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Pending in Warren Police Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that mediation in a class
action case remains pending.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2015, a securities class action
complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al., CIV 533635, was filed
on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in
the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against us and
certain of our directors and executive officers at the time of our
June 2014 follow-on public offering, and the investment banking
firms that acted as the underwriters in such follow-on public
offering."

"In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the then-present status of our RT001 topical
clinical program and made false and misleading statements
regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of RT001
topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the time of our
follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a
purported class action on behalf of those who purchased our common
stock in such follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

"On October 5, 2015, we made a motion for transfer of the action
to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on the basis
that venue was improper in San Mateo County. Plaintiff's counsel
did not oppose the transfer motion, and the action was received by
Santa Clara Superior Court on November 6, 2015 and assigned the
following case number, 15-CV-287794. On November 23, 2015, the
Court issued an Order deeming the case complex and staying all
discovery and motions pending further order. Before proceeding
with further Court action, including the filing of our motions to
dismiss under California rules, we agreed with Plaintiff to
conduct a mediation.

"We believe that the class action is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. Nevertheless, this litigation, as
any other litigation, is subject to uncertainty and there can be
no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations, financial position
or cash flows."

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


RIMAX CONTRACTORS: Faces Suit in La. Over Alleged FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ARZOLA and MAYNOR MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and
other persons similarly situated, v. RIMAX CONTRACTORS, INC., Case
No: 2:16-cv-13849 (E.D. La., August 15, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is in the business of supplying labor for the
construction industry in the southeastern United States and
several other countries.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


RINGCENTRAL INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Supply Pro Case
--------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit by Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS).

On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS) filed a putative
class action against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging common law
conversion and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations
arising from fax cover sheets used by the Company's customers when
sending facsimile transmissions over the Company's system (the
"Lawsuit").  SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees
and an injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and
unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection with its
conversion claim.

On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain
portions of its regulations promulgated under the TCPA at issue in
the Lawsuit (the "Petition").  On July 29, 2016, the FCC issued a
Petition of Public Comment on the Company's Petition, with
comments due August 29, 2016 and reply comments due September 13,
2016.

On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Lawsuit
in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss or stay
the Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on the Company's Petition.
Both motions are pending; and discovery has not commenced.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the Lawsuit.

However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and it is too early
in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this Lawsuit.  Based
on currently available information, the Company is unable to
estimate the amount of any such loss or range of loss that may
occur.

RingCentral is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS,
solutions for the way employees communicate and collaborate in
business.


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Nov. 9 Fairness Hearing Set on "Ding" Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has scheduled
a fairness hearing for November 9, 2016.

A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v.
Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, 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
December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the
Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17
through November 6, 2014.  The original complaint asserted claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO
Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted
allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's
statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its
expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the
Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and
uncertainties about the Company's sales."  The alleged
misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when
the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on
November 6, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The
Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead
plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley
Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June
23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on
behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration
Statement during an extended putative class period, running from
July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement was false or misleading in
that it failed to disclose that the Company's customers
purportedly were experiencing false positives and other usage
issues with the Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from
the customers' employees' inability to follow the Company's
Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the
full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not
revealed until March 26, 2015. Defendants filed a motion on August
25, 2015 to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an
opposition to that motion on October 9, 2015.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016, the Company and
plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, for an amount of approximately $3.3 million.
Accordingly, the Company has recorded a liability in Accrued
expenses on its Balance Sheet.  Additionally, the Company has
recorded a corresponding receivable in Prepaid expenses and other
current assets on its Balance Sheet for the expected reimbursement
under its insurance policies.

The court granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed
settlement on June 28, 2016, and scheduled a fairness hearing for
November 9, 2016. At that hearing, the court will consider whether
to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. The Company
has various insurance policies related to the risks associated
with its business, including directors' and officers' liability
insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that the
Company would be successful in its defense of the securities class
action if the proposed settlement is not approved (including
through any appeals), and there is no assurance that the insurance
coverage would be sufficient or that the insurance carriers would
cover all claims or litigation costs.


S&P 72: Faces "Gabino" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hernandez Gabino, Juvenal Gayosso Rosales, and Ramon Galindo
Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
S&P 72 Corp. (d/b/a Lime Leaf) and Sudhir Bhat, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06541 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a Thai/continental
restaurant located at 128 West 72nd Street, New York, New York
10023 under the name Lime Leaf.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


SAMSUNG: Class Suit Filed in New Jersey over Exploding Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that three women filed a federal
class action in Newark, N.J. complete with pictures, for damage to
their homes after their Samsung washing machines exploded.


SMITH LAYDOWN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Godlsby" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Paul Goldsby, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Smith Laydown & Casing Services, LLC and
Jeff Smith, Case No. 7:16-cv-00303 (W.D. Tex., August 18, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendant is an oilfield casing services company in Texas and
New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SONY CORP: Judge Declines to Rule on Microsoft's Arbitration Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. declined to rule August
16, on whether Microsoft must arbitrate antitrust claims accusing
Sony, Samsung and other electronic giants firms of conspiring to
fix prices of lithium ion batteries.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers heard arguments August
16 on Sony's motion to compel Microsoft to arbitrate its claims in
the multidistrict class action in which Samsung, Panasonic and
Hitachi are also defendants, but said she would consider oral
argument before ruling.

Microsoft claims Sony et al. conspired to fix prices for lithium
ion battery cells and lithium ion batteries from Jan. 1, 2000 to
May 31, 2011. During that time Nokia, whose mobile device business
Microsoft bought in 2013, paid more than it should have for the
batteries, Microsoft says.

At issue is an arbitration agreement between Nokia and Sony. Sony
says the agreement covers "all disputes related to [Nokia's]
commercial relationship with Sony regarding lithium-ion batteries"
and requires that disputes over its scope and the arbitrability of
claims be resolved by an arbitrator, not a court.

Microsoft responded that the arbitration agreement does not cover
the first 18 months of the conspiracy period. It wants to litigate
the pre-agreement claims for damages and injunctive relief, and to
send the post-agreement damages claims to arbitration.

Gonzalez initially indicated on Tuesday that she would rule for
Sony.

"It all arises from the purchase, doesn't it?" Gonzalez told
Microsoft attorney B. Parker Miller. "This is all about purchase.
Your client purchased something you've got an arbitration
agreement about and now you claim the 18 months prior shouldn't be
included, but there is no way you can distinguish any of those
claims in your complaint, and you wouldn't be here but for those
purchases."

Miller responded that Sony backdated the arbitration agreement to
July 2000, though it was executed in October 2001, and that it
covered only one battery model.

"This was a narrow contract about the purchase of certain lithium
ion batteries, it doesn't cover purchases before [the contract],"
Miller said. "How can [claims] possibly arise from a contract that
doesn't exist? Claims that do not arise from a contract can't be
sent to arbitration.

"To take it and apply it to transactions that happened before that
contract existed, that's an expansion of arbitration law we
haven't seen before."

Gonzalez then hinted that she may grant Microsoft's request and
"chop up" the claim.

Sony attorney Jon Cieslak told the judge that even if she does
sever Microsoft's claim, "either path leads to arbitration."

Sony agreed in May to settle for $19.5 million, making it the
first defendant to do so.

In preliminarily approving the settlement, Gonzalez said at a
March hearing that it was "on the low side."

In March, Gonzalez refused Toshiba's request to be dismissed from
the case.

Miller is with Alston & Bird in Atlanta, Cieslak with Cooley LLP
in San Diego.


SOVRAN SELF: Still Defends Class Action in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. and Sovran Acquisition Limited
Partnership said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in New Jersey.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company
brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted in part and denied in part. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any adverse
outcome cannot be determined at this time.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Court
of Appeals has denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs -- two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock -- filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 in forward loss charges on October 25, 2012. The
lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons other
than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5,
2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June
11, 2015.  On July 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Courts' dismissal.

On July 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc. On August 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied
the petition. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file a petition
for a writ of certiorari is October 31, 2016.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defending 3 Lawsuits Related to Abbott Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Company is defending
three lawsuits related to a merger deal with Abbott Laboratories.

On May 2, 2016, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Ramsey County, Minnesota, captioned
Silverman v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 62-CV-16-2872
alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the
Company and Abbott.

On May 26, 2016, a second action entitled Larkin v. Starks, et
al., 62-CV-16-3367, was filed in the same court alleging
substantially similar claims.

On July 5, 2016, plaintiffs in the two actions jointly filed an
Amended Shareholder class and Derivative Action Complaint (the
Amended Complaint). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by conducting
a flawed sale process, failing to maximize shareholder value, and
publishing false or misleading disclosure materials relating to
the Proposed Transaction, and that the Abbott defendants aided and
abetted those breaches. The Amended Complaint asserts direct
and/or derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate
waste and abuse of control under Minnesota Statute Sec. 302A.467.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction and an order directing defendants to account to
plaintiffs for all damages allegedly suffered by the putative
class and damages allegedly incurred by the Company in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

On June 30, 2016, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, captioned Rosenfeld v. St. Jude Medical,
Inc., et al., 16-cv-02275-WMW-FLN, alleging that the Company and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9, and Minnesota Statute Sections 80A.68
and 80A.76, and that the Company's directors violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, by filing a Form S-4 with the SEC that
contained false or misleading statements regarding the Proposed
Transaction. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction or, if consummated, an order rescinding it or
awarding actual and punitive damages to Plaintiff and the putative
class.

The Company and its directors intend to vigorously defend against
the allegations in these actions involving the Abbott merger. The
Company believes that a material loss is remote.


ST. PAUL FEDERAL: Faces "Reed" Class Suit in Dist. of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against St. Paul Federal
Credit Union.

The case is captioned Susie A. Reed, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. St. Paul Federal Credit Union, Case
No. 0:16-cv-02764-PJS-BRT (D. Minn., August 17, 2016).

St. Paul Federal Credit Union operates a financial services
company located at 1000 Wallace St Philadelphia, PA 19123.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eleanor Emmons Frisch, Esq.
      Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 South 8th Street, 4600 IDS Center
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: efrisch@nka.com
              aprakash@nka.com

         - and -

      John H. Goolsby, Esq.
      GOOLSBY LAW OFFICE, LLC
      475 Cleveland Avenue N, Suite 212
      Saint Paul, MN 55104
      Telephone: (651) 646-0153
      E-mail: jgoolsby@goolsbylawoffice.com

STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an antitrust class
action lawsuit is currently pending.

The Company said, "We are involved, along with two other remaining
steel manufacturing company defendants, in a class action
antitrust suit in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, originally
against eight companies. The Complaint alleges a conspiracy on the
part of the original defendants to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the
United States during a specified period between 2005 and 2007, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. All
but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. The
other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the
same time period.

"In addition, another similar complaint was filed in December 2010
purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel
products in Tennessee. All Complaints have been consolidated in
the Chicago action and seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief. Following an extensive period of discovery and
related motions concerning class certification matters, the Court,
on September 9, 2015, certified a class, limited, however, to the
issue of the alleged conspiracy alone, and denied class
certification on the issue of antitrust impact and damages.  As a
result, some additional discovery is ongoing. We have also filed a
motion for summary judgment, as has one co-defendant, and this
matter is currently pending."


SUNPOWER CORP: "Bristow" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BRISTOW, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, THOMAS H. WERNER, and
CHARLES D. BOYNTON, Case No: 3:16-cv-04710 (N.D. Cal., August 16,
2016), was filed on behalf of persons and entities that acquired
SunPower securities between February 17, 2016, and August 9, 2016,
inclusive.

SunPower Corp. is an energy company that delivers solar solutions
to residential, commercial, and power plant customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Fax: (215) 638-4867


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Appeal Decertification Order Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino, has denied plaintiffs'
and petitioners' petition to appeal a decertification order.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino (the "Burnell Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon
motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (the
"California Court"), Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP.

The putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during
the four years preceding the date of filing and alleges that Swift
failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide
proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon
separation from employment.

On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, requesting dismissal of the plaintiff's claims related
to alleged meal and rest break violations under the California
Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino (the "Rudsell
Complaint").  On May 3, 2012, upon motion by Swift, the matter was
removed to the California Court, Case No. EDCV12-00692-VAP. The
Rudsell Complaint was stayed on April 29, 2013, pending a
resolution of the Burnell Complaint.

On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside (the "Peck Complaint"). The
putative class, which includes current and former non-exempt
employee truck drivers who performed services in California within
the four-year statutory period, alleges that Swift failed to pay
for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to
compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages, and failed to provide accurate wage
statements. On October 24, 2014, upon motion by Swift, the matter
was removed to the California Court, Case No. 14-CV-02206-VAP. The
Peck Complaint was stayed on April 6, 2015, pending a resolution
of the earlier filed cases.

On February 27, 2015, Sadashiv Mares filed a complaint alleging
five Causes of Action arising under California state law on behalf
of himself and a putative class against Swift Transportation Co.
of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda (the "Mares Complaint").  On July 13, 2015, upon motion by
Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Case No. 2:15-CV-03253-
JSW. Upon the parties' stipulation, on October 17, 2015, the case
was transferred to the California Court, Case No. 2:15-CV-07920-
VAP. The Mares Complaint was stayed on February 24, 2016, pending
a resolution of the earlier filed cases.

On or about April 15, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino: Rafael McKinsty et
al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., (the
"McKinsty Complaint").  The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class
action, alleges violation of California rest break laws and is
similar to the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, and Mares Complaints.  On
July 2, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the
California Court, Case No. 15-CV-1317-VAP. The McKinsty Complaint
was stayed on August 19, 2015, pending a resolution of the earlier
filed cases.

On October 15, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Thor Nilsen v.
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (the "Nilsen Complaint").
The Nilsen Complaint alleges violations of California law similar
to the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, Mares, and McKinsty Complaints. On
December 9, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to
the California Court, Case No. 15-CV-02504-VAP. The Nilsen
Complaint was stayed January 29, 2016, pending resolution of the
earlier filed cases.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
California Court will address the merits of these cases, and the
Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages,
pending a determination of class certification. Class
certification briefing is now complete and a class certification
hearing was scheduled for April 25, 2016. The class certification
hearing was held and argued as scheduled.

In May 2016, the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino, issued an order decertifying the class. The plaintiffs
and petitioners sought leave to appeal the class decertification
order. On July 18, 2016, the Superior Court of California, County
of San Bernardino, denied the plaintiffs' and petitioners'
petition to appeal the decertification order. Therefore, at the
present time and based upon the current procedural nature of the
case, the final disposition and impact to the Company cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of "Fritsch" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company has filed a motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit by Grant Fritsch, Swift said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

On January 28, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by Grant
Fritsch, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation Services, LLC and
Swift Transportation Company in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino (the "Fritsch Complaint"). Mr. Fritsch
worked for Swift as a yard hostler and he purports to represent a
class of "all non-exempt maintenance and service employees" of
Swift Transportation Services, LLC and/or Swift Transportation
Company.

The Fritsch Complaint alleges that Swift failed to pay overtime
and doubletime wages required by California law, failed to provide
proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment. The Fritsch Complaint also includes a claim under
the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon the wrong party
being named in the lawsuit, and the plaintiff agreed to amend his
complaint, which was served June 17, 2016. The Company retains all
of its defenses against liability and damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Remaining Claims in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages for the
remaining claims in the Arizona Fair Labor Standards Act Class
Action Litigation.

On December 29, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Pamela
Julian, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Swift Transportation, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:15-
CV-01212-UNA (the "Julian Compliant"). The Julian Complaint
alleges that Swift violated the FLSA by failing to pay its trainee
drivers minimum wage for all work performed and by failing to pay
overtime.

On February 29, 2016, upon Stipulation of the Parties, the court
transferred the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, Case No. 2:16-CV-00576-ROS. On March 9, 2016,
Swift filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' overtime claims,
which was granted by the District Court on May 31, 2016.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages for the remaining claims. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to
challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Washington OT Class Actions in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is
ongoing in the Washington overtime class actions.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy
Slack, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and
Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County (the "Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was
removed to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington (the "Court") on October 12, 2011, case
number 11-2-114380.

The putative class includes all current and former Washington
state-based employee drivers during the three-year statutory
period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and through the
present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and
overtime in accordance with Washington state law and that they
suffered unlawful deductions from wages.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified
the class as it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not
certify any other class, including any class related to over-the-
road drivers.

On September 2, 2015, new counsel was appointed for the plaintiffs
and on November 16, 2015, new legal counsel was substituted for
the Company. As a result of the substitution of counsel for both
parties, the court extended all existing dates by ten months. On
April 1, 2016, the court entered an order approving the
plaintiffs' proposed class notice. The matter is now in discovery.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit to Move Into Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit by Julie Hedglin is expected to move into discovery.

On January 14, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by Julie
Hedglin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the
State Court of Washington, Pierce County (the "Hedglin
Complaint"). The Hedglin Complaint was removed to the Court on
February 18, 2016, 3:16-CV-05127-RJB.

The putative class includes all current and former Washington
heavy haul drivers and alleges the class was not paid for meal and
rest periods, was not paid for overtime, was not paid all wages
due at established pay periods, and was not provided accurate wage
statements. The matter is in its initial phases and is expected to
move into discovery.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Banks" FCRA Suit Moved to Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Indiana Fair
Credit Reporting Act class action litigation by Melvin Banks has
been transferred to a federal court in Arizona.

On March 18, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Melvin
Banks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Case
No. 2:15-CV-00105. The complaint alleges that Central Refrigerated
Service, Inc. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
provide job applicants with adverse action notices and copies of
their consumer reports and statements of rights. At this time, the
size of the potential class is unknown.

The Company's motion to have the case transferred from Indiana to
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has
been granted and initial discovery regarding the potential class
has begun. The Company retains all of its defenses against
liability and damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mediation in Utah Case Flopped
----------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a
collective action lawsuit in Utah have engaged in a mediation that
ultimately did not result in a settlement of the matter.

On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire, and Bryan
Ratterree filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc.,
Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as
the "Central Parties"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Through this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the Central
Parties misclassified owner-operator drivers as independent
contractors and were therefore liable to these drivers for minimum
wages and other employee benefits under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The complaint also alleged a federal forced labor claim under
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595, as well as fraud and other state-law
claims.

Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, the
district court issued an order compelling arbitration and directed
that the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA should
proceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor,
fraud, and state law claims would proceed as separate individual
arbitrations. A collective arbitration was subsequently initiated
with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Notice of the
collective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operators
who worked for Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and leased a
vehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. The
parties have filed several potentially dispositive motions in this
collective arbitration proceeding. None of these motions has yet
been ruled on by the arbitrator and no trial date has been set by
the arbitrator.

In addition to the collective arbitration that is pending before
the AAA, the three named plaintiffs, along with approximately 325
other owner-operators, have initiated a series of individual,
bilateral proceedings against the Central Parties with the AAA.
Discovery is commencing in these individual cases, which are
pending before approximately 30 separate arbitrators. Actual trial
dates have not yet been set by the arbitrators, but trials in a
limited number of bellwether-like cases are likely to occur in the
first or second quarter of 2017.

Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. by
Swift Transportation Company (the "Company"), the plaintiffs in
both the collective and individual actions were allowed to amend
their complaints in June 2015 to include the Company as a
defendant. The Company and the Central Parties intend to
vigorously defend against the merits of the plaintiffs' claims in
both the collective and individual arbitration proceedings.

In June 2016, the parties engaged in a mediation that ultimately
did not result in a settlement of the matter. Based upon the
information exchanged between the parties during the mediation,
and in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an accrual of
$3.0 million in the second quarter of 2016 for the estimated
probable loss incurred.

Although the final disposition and impact of the case to the
Company cannot be determined at this time, exposure above the
accrued amount is reasonably possible and, accordingly, the
Company has undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of
possible loss based upon currently available information relating
to the case. This process has included attempting to evaluate
additional facts and circumstances that may arise as the matter
continually evolves, including analyzing previous judicial rulings
the court has rendered. Taken in its totality, this information
might impact the Company's loss. For these reasons, along with
others, the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Oppose Class Cert. Bid in "Anderson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Central
Refrigerated Service, Inc. and Swift intend to vigorously defend
against the merits of the plaintiff's claims and to oppose
certification of any class of plaintiffs in the case by Robin
Anderson.

On October 6, 2014 Robin Anderson filed a putative class and
collective action against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. Case
No. 5:14-CV 02062 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (the "Anderson Complaint"). In this
action, the plaintiff alleges that pre-employment tests of
physical strength administered by a third party on behalf of
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. had an unlawfully
discriminatory impact on female applicants and applicants over the
age of 40. The suit seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, and parallel
California state law provisions, including the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. by
Swift Transportation Company, the plaintiff was allowed to amend
her complaint in October 2015 to include Swift Transportation
Company and Workwell Systems, Inc. as additional defendants.
Workwell Systems, Inc. is the company that provided the physical
testing service used by Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. The
litigation is still at a very preliminary stage with discovery not
yet commenced and no trial date has been set. There is not
currently any information available regarding the number of
potential members of the putative class or collective actions.

Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and Swift intend to vigorously
defend against the merits of the plaintiff's claims and to oppose
certification of any class of plaintiffs. The final disposition of
this case and the impact cannot be determined at this time.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Still Defends TelexFree Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. 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 still
defends the TelexFree Litigation.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with
numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The
claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by
Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related
entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.
TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC, an
independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored
by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally
alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing
scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services
and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided
financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct
its business operations. Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit on June 1, 2015, which remains pending before the
court.

Synovus believes it has substantial defenses related to these
purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims
asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to this matter.


TALMER BANCORP: Bushanky and Nicholl Lawsuits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the federal Bushanky
lawsuit and the Nicholl lawsuit have been voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff as to all defendants, without prejudice.

Three actions were filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan by alleged shareholders of the
Company against the Company, the following members of the
Company's Board of Directors: Gary Torgow, David Provost, Gary
Collins, Max Berlin, Jennifer Granholm, Paul Hodges III, Ronald
Klein, Barbara Mahone, Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas
Schellenberg, and Arthur Weiss (collectively "individual
defendants"), and Chemical. The first action was filed on April 6,
2016, styled as Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Gary Torgow, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-11261-TLL-PTM. This complaint purports to bring a
claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the
individual defendants, and a claim for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against Chemical and the individual
defendants.

The second action was filed on April 25, 2016, styled as Kevin
Nicholl v. Gary Torgow, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11482-TLL-PTM.
This complaint purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of
the Company and individually on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all shareholders of the Company who are not related
to or affiliated with any defendant. This action alleges
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder against the individual defendants;
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants; violations of the individual defendants'
fiduciary duties, asserted both derivatively and on behalf of the
class; and a class action claim against Chemical for aiding and
abetting.

The third action was filed was filed on April 27, 2016, styled as
Stephen Bushansky v. Talmer Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-11511-AJT-RSW. This is a putative class action complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all shareholders of the Company
who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. This
complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.

Each of these three complaints relate to the Company's merger
agreement with Chemical and the Company's and Chemical's
Registration Statement on Form S-4. The complaints allege, among
other things, that the directors of the Company and its Board of
Directors approved a transaction pursuant to an allegedly
inadequate process that undervalues the Company and includes
preclusive deal protection provisions. The complaints also allege
that the Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material
information about the proposed merger.

Each of the complaints requests various forms of remedies,
including among other things, that the court enjoin the merger
from being consummated, rescind the merger agreement to the extent
it has already been implemented, declare violations of federal
law, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each
respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and
proper.

On June 20, 2016, the federal Bushanky lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without
prejudice. Also on June 20, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the Nicholl lawsuit as to all defendants, without prejudice.


TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Employees Filed Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that purported Talmer
shareholders filed on June 16, 2016, a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, styled
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229. The plaintiff
requests certification as a class action. This lawsuit alleges
violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed
merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include,
among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction
unless and until additional information is provided to Talmer's
shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities
laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the
Court grant such other relief as it deems just and proper.

Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. At this stage, it is not possible to predict whether any
additional lawsuits will be filed and, if one is, the outcome of
any such proceeding or its impact on the Company or the merger.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Class Suit Over Transaction Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that TD Ameritrade improperly
charged transaction fees for exchanging mutual fund shares for
shares of other funds in the same mutual fund family, a customer
claims in a federal class action in Plano, Texas.


TD AMERITRADE: Dismissal of Zola et al. Cases Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker and Verdieck cases have taken an
appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuits related to
Order Routing Matters.

Five putative class action complaints were filed between August
and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client
orders. The cases were filed in, or transferred to, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.;
Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.

The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the
defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and
routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order
flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the
defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the
venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients
did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The
complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's
Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and
declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief
including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
equitable relief and other relief.

The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class
action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered
Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five
actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the
five lawsuits.

On March 23, 2016, the District Judge entered an order dismissing
all of the state law claims in the five actions, denying the
motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case,
and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend
their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. None of the
plaintiffs in the other four actions filed an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker and Verdieck cases filed
notices of appeal. The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file a
notice of appeal and that case is considered closed. The Klein
case is proceeding in the District Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.


TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Motions in 4th Qtr
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the
case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur
Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, the Court is now scheduled to
consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of
2016.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider
class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015;
however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at
which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and
the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court is now
scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth
quarter of 2016.

The outcome of this case remains uncertain. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.


TPC CONTRACTORS: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Maldanado, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. TPC Contractors, Inc., Artec Construction
and Development Corp., The City Of New York, and The New York City
Department Of Housing, Preservation and Development, Case No.
156891 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 17, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay construction workers' overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TPC Contractors, Inc. and Artec Construction and Development Corp.
operate a construction company in New York.

The New York City Department of Housing, Preservation and
Development is an agency of the City of New York that has
responsibility for administering certain construction projects and
enforcement of labor laws related to wages and hours in connection
with numerous public works projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082


TRXADE GROUP: Awaiting Final Approval of $200,000 Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Trxade Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting
the Court's final approval of a class action settlement.

On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class-
action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine
Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case
No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern
District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served
Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program.

On June 6, 2016, the Company entered into a binding memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiff related to this litigation to
resolve all claims in exchange for Trxade funding a settlement
fund in the amount of $200,000.

"Pending objections and/or resolutions, we are currently waiting
for the court's final approval of the settlement. We believe this
case will settle under the proposed settlement, therefore, under
ASC 450 - "Contingencies", an accrual of $200,000 is recorded as
of June 30, 2016," the Company said.

Trxade Group, Inc. has designed, developed, and now own and
operate business-to-business web based marketplace focused on the
US pharmaceutical industry.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Planned JCI Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE D. GUMM, PAUL J. PONTIER, CYNTHIA PONTIER, DANNY HIGH, and
MICHAEL F. HOLZHAUER, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated stockholders of JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., v. ALEX
A. MOLINAROLI, BRIAN J. STIEF, GREG GUYETT, DAVID P. AB-NEY,
NATALIE A. BLACK, JULIE L. BUSHMAN, RAYMOND L. CONNER, RICHARD
GOODMAN, JEFFREY A. JOERRES, WILLIAM H. LACY, JUAN PABLO DEL VALLE
PEROCHENA, MARK P. VERGNANO, JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., JAGARA MERGER
SUB LLC, and TYCO INTERNATIONAL PLC, Case No. 16-cv-1093 (E.D.
Wis., August 16, 2016), alleges that Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and violated federal and state statutory and
common law by agreeing to a plan in which Johnson Controls, Inc.
will be merged with a subsidiary of the smaller Tyco International
plc.

Tyco International plc -- http://www.tyco.com/-- a division of
Tyco International Ltd., provides electronic security systems,
fire protection, detection and suppression systems, sprinklers and
fire extinguishers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
     WAGNER LAW GROUP, S.C.
     839 N Jefferson St, Suite 400
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: 414-278-7000
     Fax: 414-278-7590
     E-mail: ksw@WAGNER-LAWGROUP.COM

        - and -

     Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq.
     Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
     Phone: 612-596-4026
     Fax: 612-339-0981
     E-mail: vjvanderweide@locklaw.com
             gmfishbein@locklaw.com


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Has Yet to Set Hearing Date
----------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appellate court
has not set a hearing date on the appeal in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on
August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class
period, alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend. On October 24, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit from the district court's order granting the
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Appellant
filed its opening brief on April 3, 2015 and the Company filed its
reply brief on June 17, 2015; additional appellate briefing was
filed in the third quarter 2015. The appellate court has not set a
hearing date as of the date of this filing.


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Mid-2017 in "Morgate" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that UPS and its
subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The
UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los Angeles Superior
Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees
who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS
Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store,
Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the
market tests that were conducted before offering the class the
choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. Trial is scheduled
for mid-2017.


UNITED PARCEL: One Case Remains Outstanding in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
vigorously defending one outstanding class action case in Ontario.

The Company said, "In Canada, four purported class-action cases
were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007)
and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September
2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the
Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted
and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the
2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the
motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended
that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been
dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the
one outstanding case in Ontario."

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and
believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and
(2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be
important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly,
at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether
such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity."


WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Shakeiya Burnett, Vanessa Morales, Jonathan Marmolejos, Richard
Serpica, and Henry Foster, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Wahlburgers Franchising LLC, Coney Burgers
LLC, Big Apple Burgers LLC, WBDC Hospitality, Mark Andrew Singer,
John Cestare, and Ben Niass, Case No. 1:16-cv-04602-WFK-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant chain in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Schley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
      245 Park Avenue, 39th Fl.
      New York, NY 10167
      Telephone: (212) 672-1848
      E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com

         - and -

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Vivianna Morales, Esq.
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
              morales@pechmanlaw.com


WASHINGTON: Residents File Class Suit Over Jury Pay
---------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
low pay for jury service has caused grumbling for decades. Now
Washington residents have filed a class action claiming the $10 a
day stipend violates minimum wage laws and prevents low-income
minorities from serving, with a "pernicious effect on the judicial
system."

King County's $10-per-day reimbursement for mileage or travel
hasn't changed since 1959, lead plaintiff Ryan Rocha says in the
complaint in Pierce County Court.  He says the low pay effectively
prevents minorities and poor people from participating in jury
service.

A Seattle worker earning minimum wage would make $104 for an
eight-hour day, and all minimum-wage workers in Washington earn at
least $75 for eight hours.

Rocha et al. sued in Pierce County Superior Court to avoid a
conflict of interest in King County, whose seat is Seattle.

King County, pop. 2 million, is the largest county in Washington
by population and the 13th most populous county in the United
States. Pierce County, whose seat is Tacoma, just south of
Seattle, is the state's second most populous county, with 800,000
residents.

Rocha and co-plaintiff Nicole Bednarczyk say they want to serve as
jurors but their employers don't pay for jury duty so it would be
too much of a financial hardship.

"Plaintiffs Ryan Rocha and Nicole Bednarczyk are individuals of
low economic status who work for employers that do not compensate
employees for jury service. Plaintiff Rocha is also black, and
issues of income inequality and financial instability
disproportionately affect King County's communities of color.
Plaintiffs Rocha and Bednarczyk are eligible and eager to serve as
jurors in the courts of King County but cannot afford to forgo the
income they would lose while doing so," the complaint states.

"If King County summoned them to perform jury service today,
plaintiffs Rocha and Bednarczyk would be forced to request
financial hardship exemptions despite their desire to participate
in the judicial process. Indeed, King County has previously
excused plaintiff Bednarczyk from serving as a juror on the basis
of financial hardship. Because King County refuses to pay
individuals for time spent performing jury service, plaintiff
Rocha, plaintiff Bednarczyk, and others are being excluded on the
basis of economic status, race, and color."

The other named plaintiff, Catherine Selin, served on a jury for
11 days last year, and also worked for an employer that did not
compensate her. She says King County violated the state's minimum
wage act by not paying her.

"King County is violating Washington law in the operation of its
jury system. Specifically, King County's failure to pay
individuals for time spent performing jury service has a disparate
impact on low-income people and people of color, preventing them
from jury participation. This form of institutional exclusion and
discrimination violates state law and has a pernicious effect on
the judicial system and American democracy," according to the
complaint.

Their attorney Jeffrey Needle said in a statement: "Citizens
aren't required to give up their incomes in order to vote, and
they shouldn't have to do so with jury service either."

They seek class certification and an injunction requiring King
County to pay minimum wage to jurors who are not compensated by
their employers, and damages for jurors who already served without
being compensated.

They are represented by Toby Marshall with Terrell Marshall and
Jeffery Needle, both of Seattle.


WECKERLE SALES: Faces "Chacon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chavez Chacon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Weckerle Sales Corporation, Workforce Enterprises WFE,
Inc., Employer HR, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
BC630724 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 17, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation and
minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a California corporation that manufactures
cosmetics products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. DeSario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile (310)553-3603


WELLS FARGO: Defendants Seek to Dismiss PICA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the case, PICA et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, et
al.  In February 2016, the Company, together with other
institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in
federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other
institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State
Superior Court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio
(FI), et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n., asserting claims
relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, defendant filed a motion
to dismiss or to stay the state court action. In July 2016,
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed
previously in federal court.


WESTCOAST WRECKER: Faces "Curtis" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD CURTIS S, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. ERNESTO SAINZ, individually, and WESTCOAST WRECKER
CORP., a Florida corporation, Case No: 1:16-cv-23509-KMW (S.D.
Fla., August 15, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

WESTCOAST WRECKER CORP. provides long distance
trucking/towing/moving services for moves including across
interstate borders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jose A. Socorro, Esq.
     Robert W. Hudson, Esq.
     HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
     355 Athambra Circle, Suite $01
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 444-6628
     Fax: (305) 444-6627
     E-mail: rhudsonhudsoncalleja.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Gilhousen" Suit Over Sale to Danone
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN-MARK GILHOUSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. GREGG L. ENGLES, JOSEPH S. HARDIN, JR.,
STEPHEN L. GREEN, DOREEN A. WRIGHT, MICHELLE GOOLSBY, W. ANTHONY
VERNON, ANTHONY J. MAGRO, and THE WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02057-MJW (D. Col., August 15, 2016), alleges
violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection
with the proposed acquisition of WhiteWave by Danone S.A.

The Whitewave Foods Company is a consumer packaged food and
beverage company, which manufactures, markets, distributes, and
sells branded plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers and
beverages, dairy products, organic salads, and fruits and
vegetables in North America and Europe. Danone S.A. is a French
multinational food-products corporation, organized under the laws
of France and based in Paris.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Shane T. Rowley Esq.
     Christa A. Menge Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (212) 363-7500


WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: "Driskell" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAPHNE DRISKELL, v. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE TREASURE
COAST, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation d/b/a
CAREERSOURCE RESEARCH COAST, Case No. 2:16-cv-14359-KAM (S.D.
Fla., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

CareerSource Research Coast is a private, non-profit, Florida
corporation with a Board of Directors consisting of private
business, economic development and education representatives,
community and state agencies, and elected officials. The company
is chartered by the State of Florida to create and manage a
workforce development service delivery system responsive to the
needs of businesses and career seekers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cathleen Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
     Jupiter, FL 33458
     101 Northpoint Parkway
     West Palm Beach, FL 33407
     Phone: (561) 653-0008
     Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
     E-mail: http://www.ScottWagnerLaw.com
             CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
             mail@scottwagnerlaw.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., Case No. 6:14-cv-01606 (D. S.C.), the Hon. Mary Geiger Lewis
on Aug. 24, 2016, entered an Opinion and Order denying a Motion to
Dismiss.

World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a shareholder filed
on April 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan
Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case
number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class Action"),
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014.

Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and
several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The
complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made
false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other
public statements in violation of federal securities laws
preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13,
2014 that it had received the above-referenced CID from the CFPB
(ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated
because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating
to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-
financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other
things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to
Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015.

The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The
Company believes the complaint is without merit.

On November 16, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to
certify the action as a class action. The time for the Company to
respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification has
not yet expired.

On January 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a response in
opposition, the Company filed a reply in further support of its
motion to dismiss.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lewis earlier this
month dismissed, without prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification pending the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  The Court amended the Scheduling Order of the
case, suspending all other deadlines as follows:

     (1) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, all briefing and discovery relating to Lead
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be stayed pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss.

     (2) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, all discovery relating to the new allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint shall be stayed pending resolution
of the motion to dismiss.

     (3) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, the parties shall confer within five days after
the ruling on that motion concerning (i) the briefing schedule on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification; (ii) discovery
relating to class certification; and (iii) discovery relating to
the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

     (4) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, the parties shall confer within ten (10) days
after the ruling on that motion concerning (i) all fact and expert
discovery deadlines; (ii) the deadline for filing a status report
with the Court; (iii) the deadline for completion of mediation;
and (iv) the deadline for all other motions, except those to
complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, and those relating to the admissibility of
evidence at trial.

     (5) If necessary, the Court will enter a scheduling order
setting a trial date and deadlines for other trial-related matters
after the Court has ruled on dispositive motions.

     (6) Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to refile once the
Court has issued its Order on Defendant's Second Motion to
Dismiss.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 12, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/wX0wZYfrom Leagle.com.


ZAFGEN INC: Dismissal of "Bessler" Case Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
A notice of appeal has been filed with the First Circuit Court of
Appeals from the order dismissing the complaint in the case,
Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13618 (D. Mass.).

The appeal was filed by Terry Brennan, Jeffrey Buterbaugh, Dragon
Gate Management, Ltd., Ron Kenner, Kevin Koziatek, and Vincent
Rampe.

District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend in
the case captioned, Terry M. Brenan et al, Plaintiffs, v. Zafgen,
Inc, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-13618-FDS (D. Mass.).

Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on October 21, 2015, a
purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes, captioned
Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-
13618. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2016. The
amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between June 19, 2014 and October 16, 2015, as a result of those
allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff is
represented by Ian N. McCallister, Esq. -- rbaker@rdblaw.net --
ROB LEVINE & ASSOCIATES

Aviad Bessler, et al. are is represented by Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
-- jeff@blockesq.com  -- Jose Anderson Fleming, Esq. --
joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP

Theodore J. Daly is represented by Eugene R. Richard, Esq. --
generichard@hrsllp.com -- RICHARD & SENCABAUGH LLP

Terry Brennan, et al. are represented by Gonen Haklay, Esq. --
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- Jacob A. Goldberg --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- ROSEN LAW FIRM; -- Jeffrey C. Block,
Esq. -- jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP

Zafgen, Inc. et al Defendants is represented by Adam Slutsky, Esq
-- aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com -- Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq --
dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Kate Elizabeth MacLeman, Esq --
kmacleman@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Zafgen, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
significantly improving the health and well-being of patients
affected by obesity and complex metabolic disorders.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: $37MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the $37 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit remains subject to final
court approval.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company was subject to a class action
case, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., which was
brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in early 2010. This case relates to
payment processing services provided by Modern Payments, a small
subsidiary of Zions, to ten of its customers that allegedly
engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices. The plaintiff has
been seeking a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act.

During the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the case for $37.50 million to
$37.75 million, (with the amount within that range dependent upon
the outcome of certain contingencies). A definitive settlement
agreement on those terms was executed by the parties and
preliminarily approved by the District Court in July 2016.

The settlement agreement is subject to further court process and
final approval by the District Court. These further steps are
likely to take place over the remainder of 2016. There can be no
assurance that the settlement agreement will ultimately be
approved by the District Court or become effective.

"As of December 31, 2015, we had fully reserved for our
obligations with respect to the settlement, so the settlement did
not cause us to incur additional settlement expenses in the second
quarter. A portion of the settlement amount is covered by our
insurance policies and will be funded by our insurers," the
Company said.


ZYNGA INC: Proceedings in Lee v. Pincus Stalled
-----------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court in the case, Lee v.
Pincus, et al., has not yet entered a schedule for further
proceedings in this action.

The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action
captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering."

"On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to
dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the
motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted
the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been
named as defendants.

"On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is
complete. A hearing date has not been set.  On August 19, 2015 the
parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director
defendants from the case.

"Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13,
2015, and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing
on plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015,
the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The
court has not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in
this action.

"Although it is reasonably possible that our assessment of the
possibility of loss could change in the near term due to one or
more confirming events, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses in the Lee v. Pincus class action and will vigorously
defend this action.  Furthermore, given that we are in the early
stages of the litigation process, we are unable to estimate the
range of potential loss, if any."


                            *********

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  * * *