CAR_Public/160830.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 173




                            Headlines


23ANDME INC: Customers Must Arbitrate Claims
A10 NETWORKS: Settlement Approval Hearing on Sept. 9
A&B INSURANCE: Faces "Youngman" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
AAC HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Kasper and Tenzyk Suits
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Defending Case in Gwinnett County, Georgia

ARCELORMITTAL: PennEnvironment Case Stayed Amid Settlement Talks
ARIZONA: Sheriff Arpaio Facing Criminal Contempt Charges
ARIZONA: Victim Compensation Plan Approved
ASTA FUNDING: Law Firm Servicer Still Defends Class Suit
AUTOZONE: Faces Customer Action in Los Angeles Over $20 Reward

AWARD STAFFING: Faces "Rein" Suit in District of Minnesota
BANK OF AMERICA: HAMP Program Fraud Class Action Can Proceed
BATS GLOBAL: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
BATS GLOBAL: Appeal in "Lanier" Class Action Still Pending
BERKS CREDIT: Faces "Iannozzi" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Penn.

BONSOY: Maurice Blackburn Criticized Over Handling of Settlement
CALHOUN, GA: DOJ Weighs in on Bail Policy
CALIFORNIA: Retired Deputy Atty. General Entitled to Final Wages
CANADA: Muskoka Residents Urged to Support Flooding Class Action
CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE: Law Firm Mulls Antitrust Class Action

CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Underway
COMCAST CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review From Ruling in "Brown" Suit
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: "Warren" Class Suit Remains Stayed
CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Set to Weigh in on Ascertainability Issue
CONFIE INSURANCE: Faces "Gibson" Suit in Dist. of South Carolina

COOPER TIRE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
CORRECTIONS CORP: Investors Sue Over Non-Renewal of Prison Pacts
CYCLE GEAR: Gets Final OK of $1.9-Mil. Settlement of "Bower" Suit
DIRECTV: Small Business Owners File Racketeering Class Action
EL POLLO: Parties Executed Stipulation of Class Settlement

EL POLLO: Motion to Dismiss Turocy and Huston Suits Granted
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action
EN-R-G FOODS: Waffles Don't Contain Maple, Suit Says
ENDO PHARMA: Judge Narrows Claims in Health Plans' Class Action
ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Cir. Vacates Arbitration Ruling

EXPEDIA: Buckeye Tree Files Class Action
FAIRMONT COPLEY: Sued for Allegedly Altering Worker Timecards
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: To Defend Against "Highlander" Suit
FTD COMPANIES: Hearing Held on Final Settlement Approval
GOOGLE INC: Working on Settlement in Email Case

GOOGLE INC: Hearing Held on Summary Judgment in App Purchase Suit
GREENE'S ENERGY: Faces "Matte" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Settles WEN Class Action for $25 Million
HAIN CELESTIAL: Violates Securities Laws, "Flora" Suit Alleges
HALYARD HEALTH: Parties in Bahamas Surgery Case in Discovery

HALYARD HEALTH: Defending "Jackson" Class Suit
HANASICH: Recalls Products Following Salmonella Contamination
HC2 HOLDINGS: Deadline to Complete Fact Depositions Extended
HOME DEPOT: Settles 2014 Data Breach Class Action
HONOLULU, HI: Homeless Sweeps Class Action Settlement Okayed

HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Ridler Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Suits
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER(R) Actions
IMPAX LABORATORIES: 19 Generic Digoxin & Doxycycline Suits Filed
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Suits by Plumbers and Delaware Valley Stayed

INNOVENTIONS INTERNATIONAL: 9th Cir. Revives DiabeStevia Suit
ISLE OF CAPRI: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, "Larson" Suit Says
JACKSONVILLE, FL: 11th Cir. Tossed Consent Decree in Hiring Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: Class Action Remains Pending in California
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Inmates Complain Over Sweltering Jails

JOHNSON COUNTY, KS: Faces "Shophar" Suit in District of Kansas
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against Veljanoski & Wan Complaints
KAGARA: IMF Bentham to Fund Shareholder Class Action
KLA-TENCOR: Agreement in Merger Litigation Remains Pending
KRAFT HEINZ: Newton Questions Selling of "Natural" Sour Cream

KROGER CO: Among Defendants in Tainted Peas Class Action
L'OREAL: Faces Consumer Action Over Amla Relaxer Product
LIBERTY MEDIA: MOU in Case v. SIRIUS Awaits Definitive Settlement
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: N.Y. Class Action in Preliminary Stages
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Suit Over Stadium Safety Netting Underway

MAURICE BLACKBURN: Faces Staff Ire Over Latest Wage Offer
MCDONALD'S CORP: California Labor Class Action Can Proceed
MCGOVERN & CO: Donnelly Seeks Judgment for $36,670 Plus Costs
MEDPARTNERS: Fraud Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
MICHIGAN: Paid More Than $41 Million to Settle Lawsuits

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gongora-Ownby Alleges
MORGAN STANLEY: 401(k) Plan Beneficiary Files Class Action
MOTI DOTAN: Faces NIS10MM Arab Discrimination Class Action
MURRAY GOULBURN: Class Action Mulled Over Milk Price Cuts
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Avenatti Offers Hall of Fame Game Settlement

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Neuharth Seeks Certification of Class
NBTY INC: Faces "Gates" Suit in Southern District of California
NESICH: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella-Tainted Products
NESTLE PURINA: Must Face Class Action Over Beggin' Dog Treats
NEW YORK: Police Dep't Faces Civil Forfeiture Class Action

NEW YORK, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Brooks" Suit
NIANTIC INC: Michigan Couple Files Pokemon Go Class Action
NIANTIC INC: Nanaimo Woman Joins Pokemon Go Class Action
NIKE RETAIL: "Rodriguez" Class Action Certified
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Violates ERISA, "Divane" Suit Alleges

NRG ENERGY: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted as to GenOn
NRG ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of California Case
NRG ENERGY: Must Respond to "Braun" Suit by Oct. 18
OLD NATIONAL: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement
OLD REPUBLIC: Motions to Dismiss 2 Suits Pending

ONTARIO: Province Faces Class Action Over Prison Lockdowns
PACIFIC GAS: Faces "Wilstead" Suit in California Superior Court
PATH INC: Certification of Five Classes Sought in "Opperman" Suit
PENN CREDIT: Bogacki Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
PENN NATIONAL: Accused by Hutkai of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages

PEPSI CO: Juice Has Preservatives, Class Suit Says
PRESS TWO: Jimenez Wants Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: AU Greens Backs Indonesian Fishermen Case
RED GRANITE: Faces Class Action Over Stolen 1MDB Assets
RELYPSA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California

ROFIN-SINAR: Michigan State Court Dismissed Merger Suit
SEQUENOM INC: Gupta Challenges Proposed Acquisition by LabCorp
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Pending
SCOTTRADE INC: Kuhns Appeals From E.D. Mo. Ruling to 8th Circuit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Moved to Oct. 3

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sept-Nov Briefing Set in 9th Cir. Appeal
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Amended Complaint in "Anderson" Due
SHAMIR SALADS: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Contamination
SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS: Runs Debtors' Prison, Class Suit Says
SPRINT CORP: Awaits Approval of "Bennett" Settlement

SOLARCITY CORP: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Action
SPRINT CORP: Trial in Clearwire Stockholders Case in October 2016
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Sued Over Proposed Merger with People's United
TALENTBIN INC: Still Defends Consumer Class Suit
TALK FUSION: "Gray" Suit Transferred from S.D. Cal. to M.D. Fla.

TANDI PRODUCTIONS: Tel Aviv Sia Concert-Goers File Class Action
TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Aloe Vera Gel
TILE SHOP: Beaver County Employees' Case in Discovery
TRIUS THERAPEUTICS: Oct. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TRUMP NATIONAL: Trial Begins in Jupiter Club Class Action

TUCSON, AZ: Photos Show Immigrants' Living Conditions in Prison
UBER TECH: Motion to Stay NLRB Enforcement Action Denied
UBER TECH: $84-Mil. Deal in Calif. Drivers' Suit Tossed
UNITED AIRLINES: Attendants Class Certified in "Vidrio" Suit
UNITED STATES: Nov. 2017 Trial Set in IRS Tea Party Class Action

VANGUARD HOME: Davis Seeks Certification of Clinicians Class
VCA INC: PAGA Claim Pending in "Duran" Suit
VCA INC: Stay in La Kimba Case Remains Pending
VCA INC: "Lopez" Case Settlement Went Into Effect
VIRGIN AMERICA: Has Yet to Reply to Palkon and Houston Suits

VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Dismissed "Zwang" Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Contempt Court Motion v. Merchaw Law Group Nixed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Lawyers Seek More Compensation for Car Owners
WAFFLE HOUSE: Seeks Review From M.D. Fla. Ruling in "Jones" Suit
WAHLBURGERS: 5 Former Employees File Class Action

WARNER CHAPPELL: Lawyers Get $4.6MM in 'Happy Birthday' Song Case
ZARA USA: Defrauds Customers, Class Suit Says
ZILLOW GROUP: Class Action Appeal Stayed Until Sept. 19

* Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements Valid Under NLRB
* Securities Class Actions Rise in Canada, 37 Cases Settled


                            *********


23ANDME INC: Customers Must Arbitrate Claims
--------------------------------------------
Ryan Borchers, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the DNA-testing company 23andMe succeeded on August 23, in making
customers arbitrate their claims over questionable marketing
tactics.

In its early days, 23andMe advertised that its product offered
important health information.  Consumers were just one cheek swab
away, as the kit argued, from learning whether they were at risk
of diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer or other serious
ailments.

The company stopped running such advertisements when the Food and
Drug Administration cracked down in 2013, but a series of consumer
class actions over the practice were soon consolidated in San
Francisco.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh sent the cases to arbitration, as
called for in 23andMe's terms of service, and the Ninth Circuit
affirmed On August 23.  That arbitration clause forces the losing
party to pay attorneys' fees and costs, mandates that the
proceedings be held in San Francisco, and excepts any
intellectual-property claims from arbitration.  The terms of
service also come with a one-year statute of limitations and says
23andMe has the right to modify the agreement.

Though 23andMe consumers do not have to read the terms of service
to buy the product, such agreement is required to register an
account on 23andMe and send their completed DNA kit off for
analysis.

"We hold that none of the challenged portions of the arbitration
provision, alone or in concert, render the arbitration provision
unconscionable under current California law," U.S. Circuit Judge
Sandra Ikuta said August 23, writing for a three-person panel.

David Tompkins and the other consumer plaintiffs failed to sway
the court that arbitration carries travel costs that discourage
them from pursuing their case.

"Although plaintiffs submitted two affidavits stating that the
cost of traveling to San Francisco for arbitration would be
burdensome and expensive, '[m]ere inconvenience or additional
expense' does not make the locale unreasonable," Ikuta wrote.

The consumers also made little headway at the provision that would
have them pay attorneys' fees for 23andMe's "top-tier lawyers."

Ikuta said the class failed to identify any case "where a state
appellate court held that a bilateral clause awarding attorneys'
fees and costs to the prevailing party was unconscionable, whether
in an arbitration or nonarbitration context."

Robert Varian, an attorney for 23andMe with Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, declined to comment on the ruling.

Jeremy Robinson argued for the class meanwhile on behalf of Casey
Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield in San Diego.

"Obviously, in general, we're disappointed with the outcome,"
Robinson said, adding that he felt the circuit took its
interpretation too far. "Their interpretation of the attorney fee-
shifting clause is a little troubling to me."

Given the financial clout a company has with such a provision,
Robinson said he feels that customers will be afraid to seek
arbitration.

"I'm concerned about it from a consumer perspective."

The case is captioned, DAVID TOMPKINS, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
V. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant-Appellee., No. 14-16405 (9th Cir.).


A10 NETWORKS: Settlement Approval Hearing on Sept. 9
----------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, 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 preliminary
approval of a settlement agreement is scheduled to be heard on
September 9, 2016.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 21, 2014 initial public offering ("IPO")
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207.  Several
substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks,
Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v.
A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015).
On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were
consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207."

"On April 6, 2016, all parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all
claims against all defendants asserted in the action and providing
that we will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected
proceeds of insurance policies. The parties subsequently executed
a stipulation of settlement, dated June 30, 2016, and filed a
motion with the Court seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement, which is scheduled to be heard on September 9, 2016.
The settlement releases all claims asserted against all defendants
and includes the dismissal of all claims against all defendants
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The
settlement remains subject to stockholder notice, court approval
and other customary conditions."


A&B INSURANCE: Faces "Youngman" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against A&B Insurance and Financial, Inc.
The case is captioned Jim Youngman, individually and on behalf of
a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. A&B Insurance and Financial, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01478-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza.

A&B Insurance provides affordable health insurance and small group
health insurance for individuals, families, and businesses in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip T. Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, PA
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298 4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216 2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Kasper and Tenzyk Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AAC 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 court denied the
motion to dismiss the cases, Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.
and Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  The plaintiff generally alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information.

On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court.  On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating these two described actions into one action.

On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
On July 1, 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.  At this
time, the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with
certainty and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any.
The Company believes the disposition of this action will not have
a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of
operations or consolidated financial position.

AAC Holdings is a provider of inpatient and outpatient substance
abuse treatment services for individuals with drug and alcohol
addiction.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Defending Case in Gwinnett County, Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal 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 the
Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in
Gwinnett County, Georgia.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.


ARCELORMITTAL: PennEnvironment Case Stayed Amid Settlement Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon Bradshaw, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that in
1986, when the Monessen mill where he'd been working was
shuttered, steelworker Emory Terensky started making a 135-mile
round trip for a job in Ohio because he doubted he'd find a job in
his hometown with good pay and the same benefits that the industry
offered.

Like the rest of the Mon Valley, the city hasn't recovered from
that industry's collapse.

"There's so much dope in this town because there's no jobs," said
Mr. Terensky, 66, now retired.

"If there's no jobs, you're going to do what you have to do."

Now, one of the main employers is the ArcelorMittal coke plant,
where operations have drawn dozens of notices of emissions
violations from environmental regulators since the Luxembourg-
based company resumed production there in 2014.

The spate of violations leads some to question whether the state
should have given hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-
funded subsidies to the world's largest steel producer before it
fired the plant back up.

"It just doesn't make any sense for public money to be used for
projects that deteriorate the environmental quality in the
community," said Philip Mattera, research director for the
watchdog group Good Jobs First in Washington, D.C.

ArcelorMittal spokesman Bill Steers said the company is working
with state and federal environmental regulators to "address
notices of violation issued by both agencies against our Monessen
coke plant."

"Numerous improvements made at the facility over the last several
months have resulted in improved environmental performance; our
goal is to achieve and maintain full compliance," he said in an
email.

Steers said the plant employs 179 people.

ArcelorMittal restarted it in 2014 after it had been on "hot idle"
since 2009.

State environmental regulators have proposed a $780,100 fine for
violations at the facility from April 2014 to May 2015. Department
of Environmental Protection spokesman John Poister said the
investigation is ongoing and "that number is likely to change."
No fine has been proposed yet for violations that occurred later,
he said.

As the plant drew rebukes from environmental regulators,
ArcelorMittal held onto $840,000 in tax credits and grant money it
received through a Department of Community and Economic
Development program before production resumed at the coke plant.

"DCED evaluates any potential concerns or violations prior to
offering a funding proposal," agency spokeswoman Heidi Havens said
in an email.  "The monitoring for this project was conducted prior
to any pending DEP findings."

In 2012, ArcelorMittal received $339,000 in state job-creation tax
credits and a $350,000 grant.  The company agreed to create 113
new full-time jobs at the Monessen plant within three years. It
said it would retain another 67 existing employees at the plant
and 1,834 employees statewide, Havens said.

She said DCED clawed back all the tax credits and $8,965 of the
grant when the agency determined the company added 111 news jobs
and didn't retain as many employees as it had promised.

"The recouped funds were based on the failure of the company to
meet with the obligations on the agreement with DCED, not due to
any DEP findings," she said.

ArcelorMittal received another $500,000 in tax credits in 2014
through an incentive program for private companies that
rehabilitate or improve a building in an enterprise zone -- a
state designation for certain areas within distressed communities.

In the two years since, residents and an advocacy group have
raised concerns about emissions from the restarted plant.

Two neighbors of the plant -- from Donora and Monessen -- filed a
class-action lawsuit in federal court last year, accusing the
plant of releasing particulate matter onto their properties and
emanating noxious smells.

A proposed settlement negotiated between the sides in the case
would require the company to spend $450,000 on environmental
improvements and pay $452,500 -- with up to $252,500 deducted to
cover the plaintiffs' attorney and court costs -- that would be
distributed to residents within 1-1/2 miles of the plant.

Not all locals share the complaints outlined in the class-action
lawsuit.  Mr. Terensky said he'll return his check if he gets one
in the settlement.

"I've been in filthy coke plants," he said.  "Monessen is like a
paradise compared to those other places."

The group PennEnvironment filed a citizen suit against
ArcelorMittal in federal court last year, seeking a court order
requiring the plant to comply with the Clean Air Act and pay civil
penalties for previous violations.

That case has been stayed until Sept. 1 to allow the parties to
negotiate, according to court records.

Told about the tax credits and grant money that went to
ArcelorMittal while it prepared to resume operations at the plant,
PennEnvironment executive director David Masur said, "It should
never pay to pollute.  The residents of the commonwealth, local
residents, want companies to comply."

Reform types often question subsidies that go to large companies
like ArcelorMittal, which reported $63.6 billion in revenue last
year.

"The largest steel company in the world -- why do they need the
tax dollars of the average working Pennsylvanian who's scraping to
get by?" Mr. Masur said.

Even though the company looks like a multibillion corporation on
paper, Steers said ArcelorMittal's business is "capital
intensive."

"Our operations must be cost-competitive to ensure their
viability," he said.  "Tax credits and economic development grants
provide meaningful incentives on where and when to invest in our
operations."

Joe Kirk, former director of the Mon Valley Progress Council,
which consolidated with another nonprofit this year to form the
Mon Valley Alliance, said that "from the standpoint of a
practitioner, there are many times that we wish we had more
incentives."

The progress council helped ArcelorMittal secure the enterprise
zone tax credits in 2014.

"The reality is that Pennsylvania competes with states for the
locations of companies," Mr. Kirk said.

Mr. Mattera has been critical of governing bodies' attempts to
outdo each other in offering companies incentives.

"In many cases, the competition between communities or between
states gets out of hand, and you end up with a race to the
bottom," he said.


ARIZONA: Sheriff Arpaio Facing Criminal Contempt Charges
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may face criminal contempt
charges after a federal judge referred him to the U.S. Attorney's
Office for violating court orders in a 2007 class action to stop
racially profiling Latinos.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow recommended that criminal
contempt charges be brought against Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerald
Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey, and Arpaio's former attorney Michele
Iafrate.

Snow's decision comes after finding in May that Arpaio, Sheridan,
and two other aides were guilty of civil contempt. The men
disobeyed Snow's earlier orders to turn over video and other
evidence in the racial profiling case, and continued to enforce
federal immigration law.

"Throughout this case, the court has reminded Sheriff Arpaio that
he is the party to this lawsuit, not his subordinates, and thus
the failure of his subordinates to carry out this court's orders
would amount to his own failure to do so," Snow wrote.

Snow, who ordered Arpaio to produce documents from an
investigation into claims by an informant, found that there is
enough probable cause to show the six-term lawman did not comply.

Dennis Montgomery, a former CIA consultant, was hired as an
informant by Arpaio's office after he claimed the federal
government had illegally accessed the bank records of about
150,000 Maricopa County residents.

"Specifically, at the time the court issued the above order, the
sheriff knew that Montgomery had given the sheriff's office 50
hard drives that Montgomery claimed to be the master database of
records that he had supposedly purloined from the CIA. To reveal
those hard drives would have revealed that they did not contain
the materials that Montgomery had described," Snow wrote.

"It also may have called into question some of Sheriff Arpaio's
other ongoing investigative activities in which he had partnered
with Montgomery, such as the alleged illegitimacy of President
Barack Obama's birth certificate. It would also reveal that the
sheriff's office actually took possession of, and intended to use,
material that it believed to have been stolen from the CIA," the
order continued.

The ACLU, who represents the plaintiff class, asked the court to
pursue criminal contempt charges against Arpaio in a June memo,
writing that he and Sheridan "repeatedly and willfully defied the
rule of law and this court."

"A criminal prosecution of Sheriff Arpaio is the right next step
for justice to be done," Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "When a federal
court finds that a law enforcement official has lied to the court
in an effort to cover up misconduct, and willfully flouted court
orders, that official must be held to account."

In a July hearing about the then-possible criminal charges,
Arpaio's attorney Mel McDonald told Snow that the lawman and his
agency were making improvements in working with a court-appointed
monitor in the case.

"You have the best of both worlds by not making the referral,"
McDonald said. "Give them the opportunity to prove it to you."

Snow indicated then that he was not going to let Arpaio and
Sheridan get off easy.

"I am through putting up with that kind of stuff and they are
going to be as responsible for what they do as any other citizen
in Maricopa County," Snow said.

In August 19 order, Snow also found Arpaio and Sheridan may have
committed perjury on the stand.

"This court has found, under the civil standard of proof, that
Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan intentionally made a
number of false statements under oath," Snow wrote. "There is also
probable cause to believe that many if not all of the statements
were made in an attempt to obstruct any inquiry into their further
wrongdoing or negligence."

Sheridan is also accused of concealing from the court the
discovery of 1,459 identification cards -- many belonging to
members of the plaintiff class -- taken during traffic stops that
were turned over to the agency by a sergeant.

"Chief Deputy Sheridan concealed the IDs from the monitor and
ordered that Capt. Bailey suspend the relevant IA [Internal
Affairs] investigation into them in an attempt to evade this
Court's order requiring disclosure of that IA and the monitor's
complete access to that investigation," Snow found. "Chief Deputy
Sheridan then made misstatements of fact both to the media and to
the monitor about his actions."

Bailey also failed in his duty to inform the court-appointed
monitor about the 1,459 identifications retrieved, and the
proceeding Internal Affairs investigation.

"Further, on July 20, 2015, Capt. Bailey gave a knowing and false
response to the monitor concerning the existence of the IDs or an
investigation into them," Snow found. "There were, as he well
knew, 1,459 IDs that had been found. There were orders that he
knew required him to identify and give the monitor the documents
the monitor requested."

Iafrate, an attorney for Arpaio during the class action trial and
some of the later proceedings, is also accused of criminal
contempt regarding the disclosure of the IDs.  Iafrate advised
members of the department not to disclose the identifications to
the monitor, Snow found.  "Advising a client to violate a court's
orders qualifies as criminal contempt," he wrote.

Arpaio and Sheridan also violated Snow's 2011 order banning them
from enforcing federal immigration law or from detaining people
they believed were undocumented immigrants without state charges.
The order stemmed from a 2007 class action against Arpaio and the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office claiming officers in the agency
racially profiled Latinos and unlawfully detained them during
crime-suppression sweeps.

An investigation by the department into the suicide of Deputy
Ramon "Charley" Armendariz, a witness in the underlying class
action trial, turned up more identification cards taken from
traffic stops, and videotapes from the traffic stops.

"It was not until November 2014 that the MCSO finally informed the
Court that the videotapes found in Armendariz's garage
demonstrated that the MCSO had done nothing to implement this
court's Dec. 23, 2011 preliminary injunction," Snow wrote.

In an August 19 order, Snow asked for another judge to be
appointed to oversee the criminal contempt process.  It's expected
to take months for the U.S. Attorney's Office to determine whether
to charge Arpaio.

The case is captioned, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; et al. Plaintiffs,
and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona; et al. Defendants., No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.).


ARIZONA: Victim Compensation Plan Approved
------------------------------------------
In the case, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs, and
United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona; et al., Defendants, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.),
District Judge G. Murray Snow ruled on the Parties' Joint Notice
of Stipulated Judgment for the Victim Compensation Plan.

The Board of Supervisors will create a fund of $500,000 for
payment of claims adjudicated in favor of claimants. In the event
that amount is exhausted through the payment of claims and is
insufficient to provide compensation to all successful claimants,
additional claims adjudicated in favor of claimants will be
honored and timely paid by the County through further allocations
if necessary. If all claims adjudicated in favor of claimants are
fully paid out and there remains an unspent sum in the original or
any supplemental allocated funds, such amount will revert to the
County.

BrownGreer is designated to serve as a neutral, third-party
administrator to manage the Notice and Claims Processing Plan to
compensate individuals who suffered injury as a result of any
violations by the MCSO of the Court's December 23, 2011
Preliminary Injunction Order.

BrownGreer's fees will be paid by Defendants at rates specified in
the price list attached to both parties' proposals in Doc. 1747.

BrownGreer will be provided a sum of $75,000 in start-up fees to
implement the claims processing program.

A copy of the Court's Aug. 19 Order is available at
https://is.gd/R084I4 from Leagle.com.


ASTA FUNDING: Law Firm Servicer Still Defends Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Asta Funding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a third-party law firm
servicer has not yet settled and remains a defendant in a class
action case.

In June 2015, a punitive class action complaint was filed against
the Company, and one of its third-party law firm servicers,
alleging violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice
Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO")
and state law arising from debt collection activities and default
judgments obtained against certain debtors.

The Company filed a motion to strike the class action allegations
and compel arbitration or, to the extent the court declines to
order arbitration, to dismiss the RICO claims. On or about March
31, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion. The Company filed
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

A mediation session was held in July 2015, at which the Company
agreed to settle the action on an individual basis for a payment
of $13,000 to each named plaintiff, for a total payment of
$39,000. Payment was made on or about July 24, 2015.

The third-party law firm servicer has not yet settled and remains
a defendant in the case.

Asta Funding, Inc., together with its wholly owned significant
operating subsidiaries Palisades Collection LLC, Palisades
Acquisition XVI, LLC ("Palisades XVI"), VATIV Recovery Solutions
LLC ("VATIV"), ASFI Pegasus Holdings, LLC ("APH"), Fund Pegasus,
LLC ("Fund Pegasus"), GAR Disability Advocates, LLC ("GAR
Disability Advocates"), CBC Settlement Funding, LLC ("CBC") and
other subsidiaries, not all wholly owned (the "Company," "we" or
"us"), is engaged in several business segments in the financial
services industry including structured settlements, through its
wholly owned subsidiary CBC, funding of personal injury claims,
through our 80% owned subsidiary Pegasus Funding, LLC ("Pegasus"),
social security and disability advocates, through its wholly owned
subsidiary GAR Disability Advocates and the business of
purchasing, servicing and managing for its own account, distressed
consumer receivables, including charged off receivables, and semi-
performing receivables.


AUTOZONE: Faces Customer Action in Los Angeles Over $20 Reward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service, reported that AutoZone changed the rules
midstream to deny customers a promised $20 "reward" for making
five purchases of $20 or more, a class action claims in Los
Angeles Superior Court.


AWARD STAFFING: Faces "Rein" Suit in District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Award Staffing Services, Inc. The
case is styled Kenneth Eugene Rein, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Award Staffing
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-02769-JNE-SER (D.
Minn., Aug. 18, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Joan N.
Ericksen.

Award Staffing is a light industrial and skilled industrial
staffing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770 9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704 0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


BANK OF AMERICA: HAMP Program Fraud Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Aug. 15
held that Hagens Berman and their clients can proceed on their
claims that Bank of America's massive Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP) was an unlawful racketeering enterprise.  The court
allowed the case to proceed on behalf of all Bank of America
mortgage holders that the RICO enterprise wrongfully denied the
streamlined modification process mandated by Congress when it paid
Bank of America $45 billion in bailout funds.

Hagens Berman filed the pending class-action lawsuit against Bank
of America in the U.S. District Court in Colorado on July 10,
2013.  The action alleged the bank and third-party administrators
including Urban Lending Solutions created and headed a
racketeering enterprise designed to mislead, delay and deny
eligible homeowners loan modifications as part of the government-
mandated HAMP program.

The Tenth Circuit's decision followed other circuits in holding
that the HAMP trial-plan offers contain enforceable promises to
the bank's customers, and upheld plaintiffs' claims of
racketeering, stating: "Because the plaintiffs sufficiently allege
the existence of a RICO association-in-fact enterprise distinct
from BOA, Urban [Lending Solution]'s participation in the conduct
of that enterprise, and that both defendants engaged in a pattern
of racketeering activity, we reverse the district court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' RICO claim and remand for further
proceedings."

"We are more than pleased the court has ruled our complaint has
sufficiently alleged that Bank of America's massive HAMP mortgage-
modification program was in fact a RICO enterprise," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "For years, we have
tirelessly fought this major Wall Street kingpin to right the
wrongs it committed against hundreds of thousands of homeowners
and taxpayers who footed the $45 billion government bailout BoA
took in, only to have it used to propagate a scheme to squeeze
every dollar from BoA customers and wrongfully foreclose thousands
of homes in the process."

The complaint states that Bank of America repeatedly lied to
homeowners and masterminded a scheme to systematically fail to
grant loan modifications in a deliberate and coordinated plan
orchestrated by the bank.  The lawsuit alleges that while BoA
promised it would work with homeowners to modify their mortgages
under the HAMP program in return for the bailout funds, the bank
instead fought to avoid granting modifications.  Former employees,
according to the complaint, have confirmed that Bank of America
instructed its employees to delay modifications, assert that it
had not received paperwork and payments when it had received them,
and declined modifications en masse in periods known internally as
"blitzes."

If you have witnessed the delaying of home loan modifications or
other behavior from Bank of America you believe to be fraudulent,
find out more about the lawsuit against BoA, and please contact
Hagens Berman with information about what you witnessed.

The lawsuit asks for damages to be awarded to a proposed class
defined as: "All individuals whose home mortgage loans have been
serviced by BOA and who, since April 13, 2009, (1) applied to BOA
for a HAMP loan modification, (2) fulfilled an FHA Trial Period
Plan Agreement or any other trial-payment agreement that was not
issued pursuant to SD-09 (form 3156), (3) sent documents to, or
received documents or other communications from, Urban employees
in connection with their attempts to modify their home mortgage,
and (4) did not receive, within 30 days after making all required
trial payments, a permanent loan modification that complied with
HAMP rules."

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


BATS GLOBAL: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, 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 oral argument in a
class action appeal has been scheduled for August 24, 2016.

The Company said, "On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence,
Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge, as
well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be
brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or
sold shares of stock in the United States between April 18, 2009
and the present on a registered public stock exchange (Exchange
Defendants) or a United States-based alternate trading venue and
were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the
complaint, which includes allegations that the defendants
committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated
with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high
frequency trading.

"On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants
which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence,
Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015,
Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York held oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on
August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016.  Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument has been
scheduled for August 24, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the
proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any,
liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate
the matter vigorously."

Bats Global is a global operator of securities exchanges and other
electronic markets enabled by world-class technology.


BATS GLOBAL: Appeal in "Lanier" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, 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 appeal in the class
action lawsuit by Harold R. Lanier remains pending.

On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three
class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against
Bats and other securities exchanges.  The complaints were
identical in all substantive respects, but each related to the
dissemination of market data under a different market system --
(i) the NASDAQ UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market
System; and (iii) the Consolidated Quotation System and the
Consolidated Tape System.  Each of the actions purported to be
brought on behalf of all subscribers who entered into contracts
with the exchanges for the receipt of market data and were injured
as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaints, which
includes allegations that the defendants did not provide market
data services in a non-discriminatory manner or provide
subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., data that is accurate and not
stale).

On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern
District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to
Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court filed an
Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits with
prejudice.

On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the
dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed its appeal
brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24, 2015 and
Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015.  Oral
argument was held on March 3, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

Bats Global is a global operator of securities exchanges and other
electronic markets enabled by world-class technology.


BERKS CREDIT: Faces "Iannozzi" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Berks Credit and Collections,
Inc. The case is titled William Iannozzi, On Behalf Of Himself And
Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BERKS CREDIT AND
COLLECTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-04533-LS (E.D.
Penn., Aug. 18, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Lawrence F.
Stengel.

Berks Credit is a small medical collections agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki Piontek, Esq.
          PIONTEK LAW OFFICE
          951 ALLENTOWN ROAD
          LANSDALE, PA 19446
          Telephone: (717) 533 7472
          E-mail: vicki.piontek@gmail.com


BONSOY: Maurice Blackburn Criticized Over Handling of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pia Akerman, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm
Maurice Blackburn is facing fresh criticism for its management of
lucrative class-action settlements, with clients who were poisoned
by toxic soy milk angered by the firm's fees for handling the $25
million settlement.

Einat Singer suffered two miscarriages while drinking large
amounts of Bonsoy in 2007 and 2008, consuming the popular soy milk
without knowing it contained dangerously high levels of iodine
following a recipe change.

She was one of 569 claimants in a class action settled by Maurice
Blackburn against Bonsoy's Australian brand owner, Japanese
manufacturer and exporter, in the country's biggest food safety
case.

Following concerns aired by Black Saturday bushfire victims about
Maurice Blackburn's handling of their landmark $494 million class-
action settlement, Ms. Singer and her husband, Peter, have voiced
complaints with the firm's Bonsoy administration.

The couple said the firm initially asked Ms Singer to consider
becoming their lead plaintiff after learning of her miscarriages
while she was suffering hypothyroidism linked to the high iodine
levels.

After the settlement, the firm rejected a causative link between
her hypothyroidism (lack of thyroid hormones) and miscarriages,
awarding her $15,179, including $4910 for general damages and
$9609 for past domestic help.

The couple appealed against the finding but barrister Fiona Ryan,
appointed by Maurice Blackburn, ruled against any changes.  She
said her review of medical literature showed that while
hypothyroidism doubled the risk of miscarriage, the age of the
Singers was likely to have increased the risk fivefold.
Ms. Singer, who has three children from earlier pregnancies, was
39 when the first miscarriage occurred.

Mr. Singer said the couple accepted Ms Ryan's judgment but were
stunned by Maurice Blackburn's fees for handling the review.  This
included $52 for a phone call he believes lasted no longer than a
minute, $52 for a three-line email requesting copies of articles
he had referred to, and $52 for another short email saying the
articles had been printed and given to Ms Ryan.

"There's something seriously wrong or there's just no scrutiny,"
Mr. Singer said.

Maurice Blackburn's fees amounted to $2000, in addition to
Ms. Ryan's review charge of $2310.  The amount the Singers will
pay is capped at $3000, with the remainder paid by the group out
of the settlement sum.

Since the Victorian Supreme Court approved the settlement in May
last year, the firm has amassed administration costs of more than
$3 million.  It previously received $7 million in costs for
running the case, with all fees deducted from the $25 million
settlement and thus reducing the pool of cash for victims.

Mr. Singer said he was concerned about the cumulative effect of
the firm's fees for handling appeals -- with at least 15 others
lodged -- eating into the settlement: "I question how many people
are doing the same thing, when we're penalizing ourselves."

Supreme Court judge Jack Forrest said last year he was "disturbed"
that Maurice Blackburn had initially failed to estimate its total
cost of administering the settlement, warning that it needed to be
reviewed.

He has since announced plans for an independent review of Maurice
Blackburn's administration costs for the settlement, similar to an
audit of the firm's costs in the Black Saturday case.

In response to questions from The Australian, Maurice Blackburn
said the Singers' allegations about inappropriate costs were
"inaccurate and wrong".

"While class actions are hard work to win, the result in this
class action is outstanding," a spokesman said.  "We are proud
that all claims are now assessed and will be distributed once the
review period has passed."


CALHOUN, GA: DOJ Weighs in on Bail Policy
-----------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in a friend-of-the-court brief, the Justice Department asked
the 11th Circuit to find it unconstitutional to keep indigent
people jailed before trial solely because of their inability to
pay bail.

Georgia resident Maurice Walker sued the City of Calhoun in a
federal class action, alleging it runs an unconstitutional bail
practice that imprisons poor defendants because of their inability
to pay fixed bail amounts for misdemeanors, traffic offenses and
ordinance violations.

Walker, 54, was arrested last September for being a pedestrian
under the influence and was kept in jail for six nights when he
was unable to pay the $160 fixed cash bond.  According to his
complaint, he has "a serious mental health disability" and lives
on a monthly Social Security disability income of $530.

A federal judge ended the city's bail policy, but city attorneys
appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit.  That led the U.S.
Department of Justice to file an amicus brief, arguing that fixed
bail schedules that do not account for ability to pay "unlawfully
discriminate based on indigence."

"The court should affirm the district court's holding that a bail
scheme violates the Fourteen Amendment if, without a court's
meaningful consideration of ability to pay and alternative methods
of assuring appearance at trial, it results in the detention of
indigent defendants pretrial," the brief states.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the brief is the
department's first filing in a federal circuit court to address
the constitutional requirements for state and local bail systems.

"In addition to violating the Fourteenth Amendment, such bail
systems result in the unnecessary incarceration of people and
impede the fair administration of justice for indigent arrestees.
Thus, they are not only unconstitutional, but they also constitute
bad public policy," the 34-page brief says.

The government says that of the more than 730,000 individuals
incarcerated in local jails nationwide in 2011, about 60 percent
were pretrial detainees, mostly accused of nonviolent offenses.

Pretrial incarceration "also often means loss of a job; it
disrupts family life; and it enforces idleness," according to a
study on the socioeconomic impact of pretrial detention referenced
in the brief.

"This impact may be exacerbated for indigent individuals who, as a
consequence of their poverty, are already in vulnerable
situations," the brief states. "In short, bail practices that fail
to account for indigence are not only unconstitutional, but also
conflict with sound public policy considerations."

The case captioned, MAURICE WALKER, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CITY OF CALHOUN,
GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 16-10521-HH (11th Cir.).


CALIFORNIA: Retired Deputy Atty. General Entitled to Final Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the California Supreme Court ruled that a retired deputy
attorney general is owed prompt payment of her final wages,
rejecting the state's argument that prompt-pay laws only apply
when employees quit or are fired.

Janis S. McLean brought her class action wage dispute against the
State of California shortly after she retired from the Department
of Justice in November 2010, claiming she was not paid her final
wages within 72 hours of her last day worked.

McLean asserts that, from November 2010 through March 2011, the
state has systematically neglected to fully and promptly pay her
and other state employees who have retired or resigned from their
positions.  She also says her unused vacation and leave wages were
not deposited in her supplemental retirement plan within 45 days
and the wages she chose to defer to the 2011 tax year were not
transferred in the required time period.

The California Labor Code prompt payment provision requires
employers to pay an employee their final wages within 72 hours
after their last day worked.

In considering McLean's case, the California Supreme Court on
August 18, rejected the state's argument that quitting and
retiring are not the same thing under the prompt payment rule.

"The word 'quit' is broad enough to encompass a voluntary
departure from a particular employment, whatever its motivation:
an employee who retires, no less than an employee who ends one job
and starts another, has stopped, ceased, or left her employment,"
Justice Leondra Kruger wrote for the high court.

A worker's post-employment plans are not relevant to the prompt
payment provisions of the labor code because an employee might not
even know what their future plans are when they quit or retire,
Kruger said.

"California has long regarded the timely payment of employee wage
claims as indispensable to the public welfare: It has long been
recognized that wages are not ordinary debts, that they may be
preferred over other claims, and that, because of the economic
position of the average worker and, in particular, his dependence
on wages for the necessities of life for himself and his family,
it is essential to the public welfare that he receive his pay when
it is due," the judge said.

Although retirees often have an immediate source of income, it is
usually significantly lower than the income they were bringing in
while they were working, the state high court noted.

The state's other squabble -- its claim that McLean was suing the
wrong employer since she worked for the Department of Justice
rather than the State of California as a whole -- was also shot
down by the California Supreme Court.

Conceding that the state made valid points that the Department of
Justice hired McLean and set the terms of her employment, the
court made it clear that California is also responsible for making
timely payments of final wages because it governs the common
payroll system through the controller's office.

"As particularly relevant here, the State Controller's Office is
charged by statute with operating a 'uniform state payroll system'
for state employees, which it administers based on information
supplied to it by individual departments and agencies," Kruger
wrote.

Kruger also noted that the seven-judge panel declined to express
their view on class certification issues because McLean will need
to get information from the controller's office and other relevant
departments to show that the state systematically failed to pay
final wages over the alleged five month period.

McLean is represented by William A. Kershaw of Kershaw, Cook &
Talley in Sacramento, Calif.

William T. Darden with the state attorney general's office and
Aimee Athena Feinberg of the California Department of Justice
represent the state.

State attorney general's office spokeswoman Brenda Gonzalez
declined to comment on the ruling.
Kershaw did not respond to a request for comment August 19.

The case captioned, JANIS S. McLEAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents, S221554
(Cal.).


CANADA: Muskoka Residents Urged to Support Flooding Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Cooper, writing for Bracebridge Examiner, reports that a
Bala man is spearheading an attempt to garner support for a class-
action lawsuit against the Ontario government over damages caused
to Muskoka properties in last spring's flooding.

Martin Ford invited Muskoka Lake residents to an Aug. 21 meeting
at the Port Carling Community Centre at 10:00 a.m.  He had sent an
email to property owners on Lake Muskoka, Lake Rosseau, and Lake
Joseph to participate in the public meeting to highlight "the
steps and the funding investment needed to carry this class action
forward."

"To effect change and to protect our properties and the Muskoka
Lakes, a bold step is required and this lawsuit is that step.  It
affects all Muskoka Lakes property owners now and in the future,"
he said.  "The flooding issues on the Muskoka lakes are and will
continue to be a significant issue for all property owners unless
effective change can be made and we believe that the only venue to
affect change is legally."

Ford started an online petition at www.change.org in April called
"Stop the Flooding of Lake Muskoka and to Change the Muskoka River
Water Management Plan," asking residents to sign in order to get
government officials to change the plan.  To date more than 900
people have signed the petition.

It has been estimated by some Muskoka groups the 2016 flooding
caused hundreds of millions of dollars in uninsurable damages to
waterfront properties.

"I believed from the start of this petition that a lawsuit would
be needed to get the government's attention since no association
or local government has the ability to affect this type of change.
For 66 years the Muskoka Lakes were managed by an appropriate
plan.  The current 2006 Muskoka River Water Management Plan was
authored by the hydro-generation companies and approved by the
MNR, which directly relates to our ongoing flooding issues," he
said.

He said Oatley Vigmond LLP, an experienced class action law firm
from Barrie and Toronto, has done the research and investigation
to the point where they believe the property owners on the Muskoka
Lakes could initiate a class action lawsuit against the Ministry
of Natural Resources and the Ontario government.

"The meeting (on Aug. 21) is to highlight and present this
opportunity," he said.

Mr. Ford added while not all property owners were affected in
2016, that does not mean they won't be in 2017 and the future.

"Muskoka property owners need to lead and stand together to affect
change of the Muskoka Water Shed Management system.  The ongoing
issues of flooding will ultimately lead to the devaluation of our
property values on the Muskoka Lakes.  No one will want to
purchase in an area where flooding is normal," he said.

Mr. Ford's petition is still online and available to be signed.
You can find it at https://is.gd/NJgiWJ


CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE: Law Firm Mulls Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Garloch, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that
two months after the federal and state governments sued Carolinas
HealthCare System over alleged antitrust violations, a San
Francisco-based plaintiffs' law firm has announced it's looking
for people who might have been harmed and could sue for related
damages.

In a notice on its website, the 65-lawyer firm of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein says it's investigating the Charlotte-based
hospital system in connection with the antitrust lawsuit filed in
June by the federal Department of Justice and the state attorney
general's office.

The plaintiffs' law firm, which also has offices in New York,
Nashville and Seattle, invites Charlotte-area residents to contact
one of its antitrust lawyers "if you believe your insurance may be
too expensive."

The notice says: "If you live and work in or around Charlotte,
North Carolina, and have insurance through an employer-sponsored
group plan, you may have paid too much for insurance and may have
had fewer healthcare options than you should have.  Or, if you are
a mid- or large-sized business of 51 or more employees you may
also have paid too much."

Brendan Glackin, a partner and antitrust specialist with the firm,
said the investigation is preliminary, but could result in a
separate class-action lawsuit.

"The government's case only seeks what's called injunctive relief
to change practice going forward," Mr. Glackin said.  "They are
not seeking any kind of monetary relief for anybody that's been
harmed by this. If the allegations are true . . . there's a good
chance that people have been harmed."

The firm's notice says its antitrust lawyers "would welcome a
chance to talk with you about your potential case . . . . There is
no cost or obligation for our review of your potential antitrust
lawsuit against CHS.  The information you provide will be held in
the strictest confidence and will help us hold CHS accountable to
businesses like yours and their employees.  Conduct like this
contributes to the skyrocketing costs for medicine that concern us
all."

In its antitrust case, the federal DOJ and the state AG claim
Carolinas HealthCare has driven up health care costs through
illegal efforts to prevent competition.  The government contends
the hospital system uses its regional dominance to get its way
with the four major health insurance carriers and negotiates
"unlawful contract restrictions" that prevent consumers from
taking advantage of lower prices at other hospitals.

Carolinas HealthCare has denied the allegations and asked the
federal court to dismiss the complaint.

Jim Cooney, a Charlotte lawyer representing Carolinas HealthCare,
declined to comment on the Lieff Cabraser investigation.  He said
he couldn't talk about pending litigation.

Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper, said
government officials also declined comment on a pending case.

Lawyers interviewed by the Observer said Lieff Cabraser's
solicitation is a "routine" way for law firms to find potential
clients for class-action lawsuits related to consumer protection
issues.

"That doesn't surprise me at all," said Gary Jackson, a Charlotte
lawyer who specializes in class-action suits on behalf of large
numbers of plaintiffs.  "It's not unethical, and it's very
routine, particularly among the large national plaintiffs' law
firms."

It typically happens after high profile cases are filed by the
government, lawyers said.  The private firm seeks to file the
civil action based on the government's claims.  When it comes to
proving the case in court, the "government does the heavy
lifting," one lawyer said.

The American Bar Association does have ethics rules that prohibit
"improper solicitation" of potential clients.  For example, one
lawyer said it would be unethical to walk into a hospital room to
recruit a client who's been injured in an accident.  But
advertising through the newspaper, TV or website is not unethical
and not unusual, lawyers said.

"I'm not crazy about a lot of the advertisements that we see with
personal injury firms," said Mr. Jackson, who is not involved in
the Carolinas HealthCare case.  "But I am familiar with Lieff
Cabraser, and I have no doubt that what they're saying is
appropriate."


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab 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 appeal in the
Total Bond Market Fund Litigation remains pending.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June
25, 2015, and in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23,
2016, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.


COMCAST CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review From Ruling in "Brown" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled Malik Brown v. Comcast Corporation, Case No.
5:16-cv-00264-AB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Brown
seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is titled Malik Brown v. Comcast Corporation,
Case No. 16-56204, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire is due on August 29, 2016;
   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 21, 2016;
   -- Transcript is due on December 20, 2016;
   -- The Appellant's opening brief is due on January 30, 2017;
   -- The Appellee's answering brief is due on February 28, 2017;
   -- The Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Comcast is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Comcast is the
largest broadcasting and cable company in the world and is the
largest internet service provider in the United States.

Plaintiff-Appellee MALIK BROWN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott A Bursor, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Email: scott@bursor.com
                 ltfisher@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellant COMCAST CORPORATION is represented by:

          Michael Wayne McTigue, Jr., Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          One Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-2742
          Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
          E-mail: michael.mctigue@dbr.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Adler, Esq.
          Marshall Baker, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          50 Fremont Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
          E-mail: matthew.adler@dbr.com
                  marshall.baker@dbr.com


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: "Warren" Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, 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 class action
lawsuit by Cassandra Warren has been stayed pending the final
outcome of a similar case.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint
against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.
The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No.
1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges violation of the
Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging
overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and
automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and
consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been
similarly affected.

The case has been stayed pending the final outcome of a similar
case in which a ruling has been made in favor of the bank
defendant.

The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any
appeals in the similar case have run their course.  The Company
believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself
vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be
determined with certainty at this time.


CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Set to Weigh in on Ascertainability Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that rulings to
be made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on
cases related to class certification could have a significant
impact on a split between federal court stances on how strict the
criteria for certification should be, especially for suppliers of
dietary supplements faced with lawsuits in California courts.

"If class members must have some kind of proof of purchase, such
as a receipt, to show they belong in the class, plaintiffs may be
largely unable to bring class actions for inexpensive consumer
goods," attorneys Kathleen Harrison and Micheline Johnson of
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC told Legal
Newsline.

"On the other hand, if no proof of purchase is required, there are
fewer barriers to class certification, and defendants may have to
defend more class actions."

The district courts split the center on the definition of an
appropriate class of plaintiffs, known as ascertainability, and
the awarding class-wide damages in class action lawsuits.
Specifically, the courts have been at odds on the issue of what
proof a class of consumers needs to provide in cases involving
small, often undocumented purchases.

"The Ninth Circuit's decision on the ascertainability issue could
be the difference between defendants being able to cut off
liability early on or having to litigate a class action lawsuit,
which, due to the time commitment and expense, can put pressure on
defendants to settle," Ms. Harrison and Ms. Johnson said.

In the false advertising case Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
certification of a class arguing against ConAgra's allegations
that their product was 100 percent natural, The court based the
class definition on whether a consumer bought Wesson oils during
the class period.

In comparison, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied a request for certification of a class in
Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.  The court found there was no way to
determine who had purchased products with labels making the claims
in question about ingredients since the allegedly misleading
labels were changed during the class period.

In addition, damages were awarded to a class in Brazil v. Dole
Packaged Foods, LLC, but the District Court for the Northern
District of California eventually decertified the damages class
because the class could not "isolate the price premium" related to
a claim that a product was improperly labeled as all-natural
fruit.

Oral arguments in the Brazil and Briseno appeals will be heard in
September.  Jones has been stayed to await the outcome of a
Supreme Court ruling on a jurisdictional matter in Microsoft Corp.
v. Baker.

In Microsoft, Ms. Harrison and Ms. Johnson said the U.S. Supreme
Court will decide whether a federal appellate court has
jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after
the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with
prejudice.

They said the lower court denied class certification in Jones, and
Jones then voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. Later,
Jones appealed the district court's denial of class certification.
If the Microsoft ruling confirms the appellate court's
jurisdiction, then the Ninth Circuit can hear the pending appeal.


CONFIE INSURANCE: Faces "Gibson" Suit in Dist. of South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Confie Insurance Group Holdings
Inc. The case is entitled Karen Gibson and Letesha Nesmith,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Confie Insurance Group Holdings Inc., Drivers Choice
Insurance Services LLC; Nation Motor Club LLC; and doing business
as Nation Safe Drivers, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02872-DCN
(D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. David C
Norton.

Confie Insurance operates four non-standard insurance agencies
throughout eight states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Herbert W Louthian, Jr. Esq.
          LOUTHIAN AND LOUTHIAN
          PO Box 1299
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 256 4274
          Facsimile: (803) 256 6033
          E-mail: bert@louthianlaw.com

               - and -

          James Mixon Griffin, Esq.
          Margaret Nicole Fox, Esq.
          GRIFFIN AND DAVIS
          1116 Blanding Street, First Floor
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 744 0800
          Facsimile: (803) 744 0805
          E-mail: jgriffin@griffindavislaw.com
                  mfox@griffindavislaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN LAW OFFICE
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252 4848
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com


COOPER TIRE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Third Circuit affirmed
dismissal of a securities class action in Philadelphia over the
failed merger between Apollo Tyres and 100-year-old tire maker
Cooper Tire & Rubber.

OFI Asset Management and Timber Hill LLC -- purporting to act for
themselves and other similarly situated investors -- filed this
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against Cooper and two of its officers.
OFI claims that, during the course of merger negotiations between
Cooper and Apollo, the defendants made material misrepresentations
in statements to investors, resulting in violations of federal
securities laws.

The District Court dismissed OFI's complaint in its entirety. OFI
now appeals, complaining that the District Court improperly
managed the presentation of arguments and wrongly dismissed the
case.

"Because we conclude that the District Court acted within its
discretion on case management and was correct in its decision that
OFI failed to allege sufficient facts to support its claims, we
will affirm," the Third Circuit said.

A copy of the Third Circuit's decision dated Aug. 22 is available
at https://is.gd/pJpxT4 from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned, OFI ASSET MANAGEMENT; TIMBER HILL LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellants, v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER; ROY ARMES; BRADLEY HUGHES,
No. 15-2664 (3rd Cir.).


CORRECTIONS CORP: Investors Sue Over Non-Renewal of Prison Pacts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class claims in Nashville, Tenn. court that Corrections
Corporation of America didn't tell investors that the federal
government was unlikely to renew its private prisons contract,
causing stock to drop 39 percent when the news broke.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced last August 25, that it
would begin phasing out private prison contracts, after an audit
found they have more safety and security problems than government-
run prisons.

In a federal class action filed August 23, lead plaintiff Nikki
Bollinger Grae says Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of
America "made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business, operational and compliance policies."

Specifically, CCA allegedly failed to disclose that its private
prisons were less efficient than government-run facilities, its
rehabilitative services were less effective, and the Justice
Department was unlikely to renew its contracts with the company.

When the government's decision was announced last week, CCA stock
immediately dropped $9.65, or 39.4 percent, to close at $17.57,
according to a federal class action filed Tuesday in Nashville.

Grae's complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act. In
addition to CCA, the lawsuit also names executives Damon Hininger,
David Garfinkle and Todd Mullenger as defendants.

"At the time of the purchases and/or acquisitions by plaintiff and
the class, the true value of CCA securities was substantially
lower than the prices paid by plaintiff and the other members of
the class," the 34-page complaint states. "The market price of CCA
securities declined sharply upon public disclosure of the facts
alleged herein to the injury of plaintiff and class members."

The proposed class includes anyone who held CCA stock between Feb.
27, 2012 and Aug. 17, 2016.

Grae is represented by Paul Kent Bramlett in Nashville.

CCA currently still manages 65 prisons in 19 states and
Washington, D.C., according to the lawsuit.

The company said via email that it cannot comment on pending
litigation.

But in a press release filed August 19, CCA said it "will continue
to provide a valuable public service to our government partners,"
including the Bureau of Prisons.

"We have been a keen observer of the BOP's declining inmate
population over the last three years," Hininger, the company's
CEO, said in a statement. "Nonetheless, we are disappointed with
the BOP's decision to reduce its utilization of privately operated
facilities to meet their capacity needs, and believe our value
proposition remains strong."


CYCLE GEAR: Gets Final OK of $1.9-Mil. Settlement of "Bower" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned LANNDEN BOWER v. CYCLE GEAR, INC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
02712-HSG (N.D. Cal.), granting final approval of the class action
settlement.

The Court also awarded attorneys' fees, costs, and named plaintiff
incentive payment.  Class Counsel will receive $570,000 in
attorneys' fees and $44,952 in costs.  Plaintiff Lannden Bower is
awarded an incentive payment of $5,000.

In full settlement of the claims asserted in the lawsuit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and various California wage and hour
laws, the Defendant agrees to pay a gross settlement sum of
$1,900,000.  The Settlement Agreement provides that Class Counsel
will petition the Court for approval of an incentive payment of no
more than $10,000 to the Plaintiff.  Following the deduction of
payments for any award of attorneys' fees and costs, settlement
administration costs, any enhancement award to the Plaintiff, and
penalties, the net settlement sum will be allocated to the class
members.

The Action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its
own attorneys' fees and costs, except as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=93SgN5iO


DIRECTV: Small Business Owners File Racketeering Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Frankel, writing for Fierce Cable, reports that a class-
action suit is accusing DirecTV of deliberately misleading
minority-owned small businesses owners into buying residential
service, then coercing them into settlements for illegal usage of
the services in business environments.

Doneyda Perez, owner of Oneida's Beauty and Barber Salon in Garden
Grove, California, said DirecTV conspired with New York lawyer
Julie Cohen Lonstein to "extort an unreasonable and unconscionable
'settlement'" from her.

She said DirecTV sales reps walked into her salon in 2014 and sold
her a service that she said was, unbeknownst to her, residential.
Later, she said, she notified by Ms. Lonstein that she was
breaking the law by using the service in her salon.  She said she
was coerced into a settlement with Ms. Lonstein and DirecTV.

"Without the business owners being made aware, defendants
designate the accounts as 'residential,' despite the fact that
defendants solicited Ms. Perez and those similarly situated
because they were small business owners," according to court
documents obtained and reported on by Courthouse News Service.

After the residential service was established in her salon,
Ms. Perez's suit claims, Cohen Lonstein sent "independent
auditors" to her business.

"Using the results of these audits, defendants then send legal
correspondence to the business owners alleging that they have
'pirated' or stolen satellite cable television services, and
threaten legal action unless the owners agree to pay thousands of
dollars and/or become business subscribers," the suit added.

Ms. Perez said she was "misled and fraudulently induced" into
settling and began paying $500 per month to meet settlement terms.

As the news service reported, the case is nearly identical to a
RICO class action filed against DirecTV and Cohen Lonstein in
Middlesex, N.J. last October by another Latino salon owner.  That
case was withdrawn a month later. In her complaint, Angela Joaquin
also accuses DirecTV and Cohen Lonstein of targeting minority
businesses owners.

Meanwhile, in 2013, the Dallas Morning News reported on a rash of
similar business-owner complaints against DirecTV and
Mr. Lonstein, claiming they were also coerced into $15,000
settlements.

Complaints have also emerged from places like Eden, Utah.

Reps for DirecTV parent AT&T didn't immediately have a statement
for FierceCable.


EL POLLO: Parties Executed Stipulation of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco 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 parties have
executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which will
be submitted for court approval.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all
hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain
violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

The parties have executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and
Release which will be submitted for court approval.

"Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are
commonly filed against California employers, and we fully expect
to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future," the
Company said.


EL POLLO: Motion to Dismiss Turocy and Huston Suits Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco 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 Court has
issued an order granting, without prejudice, Holdings' Motion to
Dismiss the Turocy and Huston complaints for failure to state a
claim.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015,
and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.
The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are
Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo
Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli &
Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early
2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in
California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such
rising costs, removed a $5,000 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period.

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and
Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and
responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed
to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence
the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law
violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Holdings' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint on or before August 22, 2016. Defendants intend to
vigorously defend against the claims asserted.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has filed a securities class against lawsuit
against Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. (EBS). Investors who wish to
file a motion to become the lead plaintiff in the litigation must
do so not later than September 19, 2016.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company
overstated demand for its anthrax vaccine between January 11, 2016
and June 21, 2016.

If you purchased Emergent BioSolutions common stock between those
dates and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to contact Holzer & Holzer attorneys Corey D. Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq., at
mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832,
to discuss your legal rights.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta,
Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide.


EN-R-G FOODS: Waffles Don't Contain Maple, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that EN-R-G Foods dba Honey
Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles do not contain any maple
syrup, as advertised on the label, a class action claims in Los
Angeles Federal Court.


ENDO PHARMA: Judge Narrows Claims in Health Plans' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has trimmed state law claims brought by health plans in a class
action lawsuit claiming that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. paid a
rival drugmaker to delay the launch of a generic version of Endo's
painkiller Opana ER, forcing the health plans to pay higher prices
by preventing competition.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber in Chicago on Aug. 11
dismissed unjust enrichment claims brought by the health plans
against Endo and rival Impax Laboratories under Illinois and Rhode
Island law, saying that those states do not allow indirect
purchasers such as health plans to recover damages for antitrust
injuries.  This is the case even if the antitrust claims are
sought through unjust enrichment claims.


ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Cir. Vacates Arbitration Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
Ryan Borchers, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit ruled August 22, that federal labor-relations
law doesn't allow an accounting firm to force its employees to
arbitrate their issues individually rather than collectively,
namely through a class action.

Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel, former employees of the
accounting firm Ernst & Young, filed a class and collective action
in federal court in San Francisco New York, claiming their former
employer misclassified them and denied them overtime wages.

After the case was transferred to the Northern District of
California, Ernst & Young pointed to a clause in Morris and
McDaniel's employment contracts that said they could only pursue
legal claims through arbitration and only as individuals in
"separate proceedings." A federal judge accordingly ordered
arbitration.

But Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, who delivered the
panel's 2-1 decision, wrote on August 22 that the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that the National Labor Relations Board's
interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act remains the
standard: employees have to be allowed to work together to address
claims related to wages, hours or other working conditions.

"Applied to the Ernst & Young contract, sections 7 and 8 [of the
act] make the terms of the concerted action waiver unenforceable,"
Thomas wrote. "The 'separate proceedings' clause prevents
concerted activity by employees in arbitration proceedings, and
the requirement that employees only use arbitration prevents the
initiation of concerted legal action anywhere else."

And while the Federal Arbitration Act says that legal arbitration
clauses in employment contracts must be enforced, arbitration
itself is not the issue in this case, Thomas wrote.

"It would equally violate the National Labor Relations Act for
Ernst & Young to require its employees to sign a contract
requiring the resolution of all work-related disputes in court and
in 'separate proceedings,'" he wrote. "The same infirmity would
exist if the contract required disputes to be resolved through
casting lots, coin toss, duel, trial by ordeal, or any other
dispute resolution mechanism, if the contract (1) limited
resolution to that mechanism and (2) required separate individual
proceedings. The problem with the contract at issue is not that it
requires arbitration; it is that the contract term defeats a
substantive federal right to pursue concerted work-related legal
claims."

But Circuit Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote in her dissent that the
clause is enforceable and the majority opinion runs contrary to
the very nature of arbitration.

"As the Supreme Court has explained, such a waiver of class
actions is typical in the arbitration context because the class
procedural mechanism 'interferes with fundamental attributes of
arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the
Federal Arbitration Act,'" she wrote.

"The majority's attempt to equate a substantive right to concerted
action with a legal procedural mechanism for resolving disputes
has no basis in history or Supreme Court precedent."

Max Folkenflik of Folkenflik & McGerity in New York represented
Morris and McDaniel.

Rex Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Los Angeles
represented Ernst & Young.

"I think it's a very strong decision," Folkenflik said, adding
that he would not be surprised to see the case reach the Supreme
Court.

"I think at the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit's opinion would
be affirmed because it's a much better reading of the [National
Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act] than the
dissent's argument."

Daniel Nash, who also represented Ernst & Young and who is
affiliated with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's Washington
office, declined to comment. The National Labor Relations Board,
which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief, also declined to
comment.

The case is captioned, STEPHEN MORRIS; KELLY MCDANIEL, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP; ERNST & YOUNG U.S., LLP,
Defendants-Appellees., No. 13-16599 (9th Cir.).  A copy of the
Ninth Circuit's decision is available at https://is.gd/1v7Z0x from
Leagle.com.


EXPEDIA: Buckeye Tree Files Class Action
----------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a class action, independently owned hotels accuse Expedia,
Orbitz and other travel websites of running a bait-and-switch
scam, funnelling business to hotels that pay them a fee by falsely
advertising nonparticipating hotels as booked up.

"Expedia's deceit is brazen," Buckeye Tree Lodge And Sequoia
Village Inn say in the federal class action. "Expedia posts fake
telephone numbers for Buckeye Tree Lodge and other class member
hotels to divert callers to Expedia's own operators, who then try
to book the consumers at Expedia member hotels.

"Worse, Expedia then targets social media advertisements -- for
hotels it cannot book -- to those consumers, using the brands of
class member hotels to divert business from them to Expedia
members.

"Believing Expedia's representation that there is no availability
at a class member hotel, consumers take their business to Expedia
member hotels. And the bait and switch is complete."

California-based Buckeye Tree Lodge And Sequoia Village Inn LLC is
the single, named plaintiff, with two hotels. It sued Expedia,
Hotels.com, Orbitz and Trivago, four of the leading web-based
hotel booking sites.

All four websites charge hotels a fee to book rooms via their
website, but have no ability to book hotels that do not
participate in their program, including the Buckeye Tree Lodge and
Sequoia Village Inn.

It's a simple scam, and a "classic bait and switch," the hotels
say: "Defendants push 'deals' for stays at their members' hotels
and lie about the availability of rooms at non-member hotels."

And consumers have no way of telling which hotels do business with
the websites and which do not, according to the complaint.

Compounding the situation, the websites advertise on social media
that they can book rooms at nonmember hotels, luring consumers to
their sites, then redirect them to other hotels, violating the
victim hotels' trademarks, interfering with their business and
profiting unjustly, Buckeye Tree Lodge says.

"The deception starts even before consumers visit the websites.
Defendants purchase false and misleading advertisements on
internet search engines like Google, to funnel traffic to their
websites.

"For example, when a consumer uses Google to search for the
Buckeye Tree Lodge, the engine's top result returns an
advertisement purchased by defendants to 'Book Buckeye Tree Lodge'
and promising 'Incredible Offers on Great Hotels. Buckeye Tree
Lodge,'" the complaint states.

The complaint then shows a screen shot of a Google search for
Buckeye Tree Lodge, with links to hotels.com and orbitz.com.

"The Google advertisements were false, misleading and omitted
material facts necessary to make them not misleading because they
stated or implied that Defendants had an affiliation with the
class members and that defendants could book stays at the class
members' hotels on behalf of consumers," the complaint states.

"In truth, at all relevant times, defendants had no affiliation
with Buckeye Tree Lodge and the class members, and defendants had
no way to actually book stays at Buckeye Tree Lodge or at the
class members' hotels on behalf of consumers."

A Google search August 19, morning for Buckeye Tree Lodge led to a
page on which the 12th link was to Expedia.com. However, in a
Google search for Buckeye Tree Lodge And Sequoia Village Inn, the
Expedia link appeared on top, and the link itself led to a page of
other hotels in the area, but not the Buckeye Tree Lodge or
Sequoia Village Inn.

The LLC seeks certification of a national class and a California
subclass, a permanent injunction, restitution, disgorgement of
ill-gotten gains, and damages for false advertising, trademark
violations, unfair competition, business code violations,
intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage, and unjust enrichment.

It is represented by James Patterson in San Diego.

Expedia, Orbitz and Trivago did not respond to emailed requests
for comment. Hotels.com does not list a press contact for the
United States.


FAIRMONT COPLEY: Sued for Allegedly Altering Worker Timecards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that the
company that operates the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel in downtown
Boston has been hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that
hotel management told supervisors to secretly change employees'
timecards so that they would be paid less than the hours they
worked.

The lawsuit, lodged on Aug. 12 in Suffolk Superior Court, was
brought by Lou Saban, who worked as a bartender at Oak Long Bar
and Kitchen, a restaurant in the hotel popular among both guests
and professionals who work in Back Bay.  Mr. Saban stopped working
for the hotel in February.

One of Mr. Saban's supervisors told him that the Fairmont Copley's
management instructed her and others to shave hours off hourly
workers' timecards, in a bid to boost the luxury hotel's financial
performance, according to Mr. Saban's complaint.  The employees
allegedly were not told about the changes to their timecards.

Supervisors and payroll administrators would either change "clock
in" and "clock out" times or simply reduce the hours worked on
employees' timecards, the complaint said.

One day, for instance, Mr. Saban clocked in at 10:07 a.m. and
clocked out at 7:05 p.m., meaning he was on the clock for a few
minutes short of nine hours, according to the complaint. However,
his clock-in time was later changed to 10:30 a.m. and he was only
paid for 8.5 hours that day, the complaint said.

Because the supervisor who told Mr. Saban about the practice did
not alter the timecards, she was reprimanded by the hotel's
general manager, the complaint said.

A spokeswoman for the hotel declined to comment on the
allegations.

Mr. Saban is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of all Fairmont Copley
employees over the past three years who were paid by the hour.
The changes to the time records violate state wage law, according
to the lawsuit.

The Fairmont Copley's parent company, Canada-based FRHI Hotels &
Resorts, was acquired by the global hospitality giant AccorHotels
Group in July.


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: To Defend Against "Highlander" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, 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, First Clover Leaf, certain executive officers of First
Clover Leaf, certain members of First Clover Leaf's board of
directors are named as defendants in one purported class action
lawsuit brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf
stockholder challenging the merger of First Clover Leaf into the
Company (the "Lawsuit").

The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al , Case No. 16-
L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District. The Lawsuit
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual officers and
directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the process leading to
the proposed merger of First Clover Leaf and the Company. The
Lawsuit alleges that the merger consideration is inadequate and
that the joint proxy statement/prospectus does not contain
sufficient disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also alleges that
First Clover Leaf and the Company aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants.

The relief sought includes class certification, declaratory
relief, an injunction enjoining consummation of the merger,
rescission of the merger should it be consummated, interest on any
monetary judgment, costs, and attorneys' fees.  The Company, First
Clover Leaf, and the individual defendants believe that the
factual allegations in the Lawsuit are without merit and legally
unfounded. They have moved to dismiss the complaint and ntend to
vigorously defend against these allegations.


FTD COMPANIES: Hearing Held on Final Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, 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 pending final
settlement approval motion was heard by the district court on July
27, 2016.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer
class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc.
and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing
International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated
during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs'
claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based
membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope
Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership
Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from
certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with
an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of
which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly
damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise
allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members'
billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized
charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees
for the Membership Programs.

On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed
motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August
13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended
complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14,
2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint.
Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in
the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against
Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only);
(3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)
fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9)
negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class.

Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Provide
Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs
Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions
to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the
court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The
parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and
mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this
matter.

On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high
level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties
negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the
weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal
written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the
Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and
Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended
complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and
briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval
hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013,
and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the
hearing.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling
objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court
entered judgment on the Settlement on February 21, 2013. The
objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the
Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2,
2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order
deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v.  Netflix, No. 12
15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v.  Netflix,
No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's
approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix
DVD subscribers.

On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. The Ninth
Circuit's mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the matter is now
pending before the district court to consider final approval of
the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix. On April 23, 2015,
the district court entered an order reopening the case and
ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing
the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their
intentions going forward.

On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties, and the
objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics
on such date. After receiving the parties, and objector's
memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the
issue of final settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties
filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18,
2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July
2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental
briefs on July 16, 2015. The pending final settlement approval
motion was heard by the district court on July 27, 2016.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court took the
final settlement approval motion under submission and advised that
it would issue a written opinion. The court did not indicate when
it would issue the written decision.


GOOGLE INC: Working on Settlement in Email Case
-----------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose, August 18, refused to let hundreds of
university students, staff and faculty sue Google as a class for
scanning their emails and using them for profit, and a settlement
appears likely.

"I will not consolidate these cases," U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
said at an afternoon hearing. "I just don't think it's the same
transaction or occurrence."

Plaintiffs' attorney Ray Gallo indicated at the hearing that his
clients and Google are working on a settlement that could be
completed by October.

Google scans the contents of emails sent through its email service
and uses the data for a twofold purpose: to develop targeted
advertising, and to develop user profiles it can sell to other
companies.

The plaintiffs sought to combine two cases with more than 800
plaintiffs with similar claims.

Koh said it's not a true class action. "There is too much
individualization," she said.

For instance, some plaintiffs are primary users of the email
accounts, while others send emails to these accounts, which Google
intercepts and scans for commercial purposes.

Some plaintiffs are students, some are staff and some are faculty.
And the plaintiffs attend or work at a variety of universities
that may have different email infrastructures.

Gallo said there is enough commonality to consolidate. "The cases
clearly have a common question," he said.

The dispute stems from a complaint filed in May by hundreds of
plaintiffs who work for or attend some of the nation's most
prestigious colleges and universities. They claim that Google in
effect spies on student, faculty and staff emails to use the
information to make money.

"The content of plaintiffs' and all educational users' emails was
intercepted, extracted, analyzed and used by Google to create user
profiles, user-segment models and otherwise to enhance Google's
marketing, advertising, and other businesses interests and
products," the plaintiffs said in the complaint.

Google Apps for Education includes email, spreadsheets and other
office or Internet-related apps. The Mountain View-based company
offers the package for free to colleges and universities.

The plaintiffs say that despite assurances from Google that it
would not use its access to university emails to compile
information it could sell, the company did exactly that.

"Google denied that it was scanning Google Apps for Education
users' emails for advertising or other commercial purposes and
misled educational institutions into believing their users' emails
were private," the complaint states. "Google took deliberate steps
to conceal and deny its actions.

The lawsuit includes plaintiffs from Harvard, Yale, the University
of Michigan, the University of California-Berkeley, the University
of Maine, the University of Arizona, Boston University, New York
University, Northwestern and the University of California-Santa
Cruz.

Koh recently handed down a decision in a similar case involving
Google's interception and scanning of data in users' email without
permission, and encouraged the attorneys at the Thursday hearing
to read the ruling.

In that ruling, of Aug. 12, Koh found that Google's interception
policy may violate the California Wiretap Act, and denied Google's
motion to dismiss.

Michael Rhodes, attorney for Google, said he understands what Koh
is saying.

"We can read the tea leaves, your honor," he said.

Google and the university plaintiffs are scheduled to argue a
motion to dismiss in late October, but on August 18, the attorneys
indicated that Koh is more likely to preside over a settlement
hearing at that time.


GOOGLE INC: Hearing Held on Summary Judgment in App Purchase Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action against Google claiming the company illegally
disclosed private data during app purchases does not look likely
to survive, after a federal judge in San Jose, Calif. expressed
reservations about the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman told the plaintiffs that she did
not believe there was sufficient evidence of actual injury for the
case to survive a motion for summary judgment during a hearing on
August 24.

"I appreciate these issues come before the court, but I don't know
that you have the evidence to survive summary judgment," Freeman
told the lawyer for lead plaintiff Alice Svenson. "I am inclined
to look favorably on the plaintiff's definition of sharing, but
you have to prove there was an actual injury as a result of the
breach of the privacy agreement."

The plaintiffs and judge circled back to this point over and over,
which is essentially that even if the facts as put forward by
Svenson are true, it does not constitute a contract claim if she
did not suffer harm as a result of the alleged privacy breach.

Svenson is claiming that when she bought an app through the Google
Play store, Google's payment service divulged private information
including her email address to a third party -- in this case the
app developer YC Droid -- without her permission and in violation
of the privacy portion of the terms of service.

Svenson bought an email messaging app for $1.77 in May 2013,
during which the Google payment-processing system made her
information available to the third-party app developer, the
plaintiffs claim.

However, the plaintiffs concede there is no proof that the app
developer ever received Svenson's private information, let alone
used it.

Susan Fahringer, attorney for Google, said this lack of actual
injury is fatal to the breach of contract claim and asked Freeman
to dismiss the case.

"The utter absence of evidence here fails across the board,"
Fahringer said. "There is no reason whatsoever for this case to go
forward."

Freeman seemed inclined to agree with this interpretation.

However, Svenson's attorney Rafey Balabanian attempted to draw a
parallel between his client's case and some of the large data-
breach cases currently before judges, including the case involving
insurance giant Anthem's data breach currently before U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh, also in San Jose.

"In this case, it was found that the insurer was not maintaining
the information in the manner that they promised they would and in
accordance with industry standards," Balabanian said.

But Freeman wasn't buying it, drawing a subtle but substantial
distinction between the cases.

"The difference is that in that case, the party actually has the
information," the judge said. "As opposed to the hacker just there
ready to push the button, there has been a completed action to
obtain the information."

Freeman said that just by making the private information
available, Google can't be held liable unless the private
information is actually taken by a third party. It doesn't have to
be then used necessarily, but it at least has to be taken.

"You're not saying that they could've sued Anthem before the
hack," Freeman asked rhetorically. "The hack is the actual injury
and in this case we don't have that."

Balabanian said there is case law involving companies who
jeopardize customers' private information but where no actual hack
occurs where breach of contract claims held.

"In those cases, the imminent risk of future injury is sufficient
for the purposes of standing," Balabanian said.

"I'm skeptical, but I will look forward to reading them," Freeman
said of the rulings Balabanian cited during oral argument.

This lack of injury continued to be front and center as the sides
argued during the class certification portion of the hearing.

However, the judge said class certification will ultimately be
moot if Google's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Freeman did say that if the plaintiffs find others who may have
similar claims and can assert actual injury or have the support of
better facts, the possibility of amending the suit and proceeding
along those lines still exists.


GREENE'S ENERGY: Faces "Matte" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Greene's Energy Group, LLC. The
case is captioned DONNIE MATTE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREENE'S ENERGY
GROUP, LLC, doing business as GEG CONSULTANTS, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01258-DSC (W.D. Penn., Aug. 18, 2016). The assigned
Judge is David S. Cercone.

Greene's Energy is a diversified oilfield services company
providing integrated testing, rentals and specialty services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Settles WEN Class Action for $25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Hornet, citing New York Times, reports that consumers who
went bald after using WEN Cleansing Conditioner could be eligible
for up to $20,000 as part of a proposed $25 million class action
lawsuit settlement.

Celebrity stylist Chaz Dean and Guthy-Renker LLC, the
manufacturers of WEN Cleansing Conditioner, proposed the
settlement in June 2016.

If approved by a federal court judge, the settlement would provide
a $25 cash payment to anyone who purchased WEN.  It would also
compensate people who suffered hair loss or permanent baldness.

The FDA has received 127 reports of hair breakage, hair loss,
baldness, and itchy skin reaction to WEN.  Inspectors discovered
another 21,000 complaints that were never reported.

Last year, hundreds of people joined a class action lawsuit
accusing Chaz Dean and Guthy-Renker of ignoring thousands of
complaints and continuing to sell hair-care products known to
cause baldness.

Unlike most hair-care products, WEN Cleansing Conditioner is a "5-
in-1" product that combines shampoo and conditioner without harsh
chemicals.

Some say the problem is it contains virtually no cleanser and does
not rinse out, so it is like using lotion to wash your hair.

Meanwhile, Guthy-Renker is lobbying Congress to reject the
Personal Care Products Safety Act, a law that would require
cosmetics-makers to tell the FDA about "serious" reactions to
their products.  Under the current law, they don't have to report
anything -- even if someone dies.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Violates Securities Laws, "Flora" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY D. FLORA, 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-04581 (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 or otherwise acquired Hain securities between
November 5, 2015, and August 15, 2016, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

Hain was founded in 1993, incorporated in Delaware, and is
headquartered in Lake Success, New York.  Irwin D. Simon is the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman.
Pasquale Conte is the Company's Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice President.

Hain manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and
natural products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
and Europe.  The Company sells its products through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, and drug and convenience stores in approximately 70
countries worldwide.

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


HALYARD HEALTH: Parties in Bahamas Surgery Case in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, 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, the parties in the case,
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., remain engaged in discovery.

The Company said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and
have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery
Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health,
Inc., f/k/a Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-
Clark Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.),
filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brings a
putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud
(affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law in connection
with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns."

"On March 21, 2016, we moved to dismiss the non-California
plaintiffs, and on May 26, 2016, the court issued an order
dismissing them.  On June 14, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion to dismiss Prime Healthcare
Centinela, LLC and one of the other two remaining California
plaintiffs, leaving only the current named plaintiff, Bahamas
Surgery Center, LLC.

"On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved for class certification of a
California-only damages class and a California-only injunctive
relief class. Although the plaintiff did not also move for
certification of a nationwide class to determine liability,
damages, or injunctive relief, it did move for certification of a
nationwide "issue" class purporting to resolve certain issues
allegedly "common" to members of that class. On July 8, 2016, we
moved for summary judgment. The parties also remain engaged in
discovery. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
matter."


HALYARD HEALTH: Defending "Jackson" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, 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 intends to
defend against the case, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc.

The company said, "We have been served with a complaint in a
matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E.
Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS
(S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff
brings a putative class action against the Company, our Chief
Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and other
defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that
the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose
certain information about the safety and effectiveness of our
MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company's
stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged
class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who
subsequently received Halyard Health securities is February 25,
2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for
purchasers of Halyard Health securities is October 21, 2014 to
April 29, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend this matter."


HANASICH: Recalls Products Following Salmonella Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Powell, writing for barfblog, reports that the Health
Ministry ruled that the "Hanasich" tehina company will no longer
be allowed to manufacture or distribute its products until further
notice, after its raw tehina was found to be infected with
Salmonella, leading to a recall of many products containing
Hanasich tehina.

"Hanasich tehina company has conducted itself in a negligent,
irresponsible, unfitting, and unprofessional manner," the Health
Ministry ruling read.

The Ministry ordered the company to destroy all the Salmonella-
infected tehina stock.

Meanwhile, a request for approval for a class action suit against
Shamir Salads, Prince Tehina, and the Shufersal Ltd. and
Yohananoff retail chains was filed at the Lod District Court,
following the recent contamination of Tehina with salmonella.  The
request demands financial compensation of over NIS6.7 billion,
NIS1,000 per suitor.

The suit was filed through advocates Assaf Noy, David Or Hen,
Yossi Greiber and Yitzhak Or and includes a demand for
compensation for Israeli consumers "who feel anxious about their
own health and the health of their children, anger, uncertainty,
and disgust at eating the products of the respondents, suspected
of salmonella bacteria contamination."

The lawsuit claims that Shamir Salads or Prince Tehina had been
negligent in not conducting lab tests on their products, while
Prince had also concealed information from its customers.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Deadline to Complete Fact Depositions Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a
stockholder class action have negotiated an extension of the
deadline to complete fact depositions, which was originally July
8, 2016, until October 17, 2016.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt,
Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.  The currently operative
complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff board of
directors and HC2, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached
their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The
Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger
based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out
the remaining public stockholders of Schuff International
following the completion of the tender offer.  The Complaint seeks
rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as
well as attorney's fees and other relief.

The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.
Defendants are currently in the discovery phase of the case, and
have substantially completed their production of documents to
plaintiffs. The parties have negotiated an extension of the
deadline to complete fact depositions, which was originally July
8, 2016, until October 17, 2016.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend our interests
vigorously," the Company said.


HOME DEPOT: Settles 2014 Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Greg Masters, writing for SCMagazine.com, reports that a
settlement is brewing between The Home Depot and the 50 million
customers whose personally identifiable information (PII) was
compromised in a massive hack in 2014, according to a Fox 5 video.

Provided a judge signs off on it, Home Depot customers who used a
credit or debit card between April 1 and Sept. 18, 2014 at a self-
checkout terminal or received notification that their email
address was compromised are party to the class action.

Free credit card monitoring and cash payments are on the table for
those affected by the breach.

The retailer was hit with several suits in the wake of the attack
claiming the chain did not adequately secure its payment card
system or notify customers in a timely manner.

Home Depot denied the allegations, but agreed to settle the data
breach class action lawsuit to avoid the cost and uncertainty of
trial.

Claims must be submitted by Oct. 29, 2016.

"The fundamentals of how we deal with data security need to be
reinvented to ensure we can actually protect peoples' digital
lives," Ajay Arora, CEO and co-founder of Vera, told
SCMagazine.com in an emailed statement.  "At the end of the day,
all cybersecurity -- whether it's at the network, device,
application, platform or database level -- ultimately exists to
protect companies' and peoples' information and data. So why don't
we attach that security directly to that information and data and
have it follow that data wherever it goes."

It's not that hard to imagine, Mr. Arora added, and it's not that
hard to make happen.  "We as an industry just need to make it easy
for businesses like Home Depot and others to ingest it into their
environments so they can start really protecting their customers'
and employees' critical information from being stolen and
potentially ruining their lives."


HONOLULU, HI: Homeless Sweeps Class Action Settlement Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Rui Kaneya, writing for Civil Beat, reports that a proposed
settlement to end a landmark lawsuit over how the city has been
conducting homeless sweeps cleared a hurdle on Aug. 15, with a
federal judge recommending preliminary approval of the deal.

The class-action lawsuit was originally filed in September by 15
plaintiffs -- who are or have been homeless -- alleging that the
city's maintenance crew routinely destroyed their belongings
required for "mere existence" and "the care of their children"
during the enforcement of the stored property and sidewalk
nuisance ordinances.

The case led to a court-sanctioned agreement in January that
prevented the city from removing any personal items and
immediately destroying them during the sweeps.

Four months later, the city reached the settlement with the
plaintiffs following lengthy mediation sessions.

Under the terms of the settlement, which incorporates the January
agreement, the city would pay damages of $48,500 to the original
15 plaintiffs and six additional people who later joined the case.

The settlement also allows "all homeless or formerly homeless
individuals whose property was seized and destroyed by City and
County of Honolulu officials" to join the lawsuit as "class
members" but sets aside no funds for their damages.

And the city would be responsible for notifying potential
additional plaintiffs by taking the following steps at its
expense:

   -- Publishing a notice of the settlement in the pages of the
Honolulu Star-Advertiser twice -- once on a weekday and again on a
Saturday or Sunday;

   -- Posting the settlement notice on the city's website along
with the advance notices of planned sweeps;

   -- Distributing 20 copies of the settlement notice to homeless
service providers with a request to post them in "conspicuous
places" for 30 days;
Posting the settlement notice for 30 days at any locations where
any personal items are confiscated during the sweeps;

  -- Providing the settlement notice to any individuals whose
personal items are confiscated during the sweeps.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Chang endorsed the settlement on
Aug. 15, concluding that it offers "real and tangible injunctive
benefits" to the class members.

The settlement is "fair and adequate and well within the range of
reasonableness required for preliminary approval," Chang wrote.

Under the local rules for the U.S. District Court, Judge Helen
Gillmor, who is overseeing the case, can decide whether to adopt
Chang's recommendation after 21 days -- a period that allows any
objections to be filed.

If Gillmor adopts the recommendation, any class member who wants
to opt out or object to the settlement would have until Oct. 7 to
notify the court in writing.

Three weeks later, the court would hold a fairness hearing to
determine whether the settlement should be given final approval.

Once Gillmor grants the final approval, the plaintiffs' attorneys
from the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii and the law firm
of Alston Hunt Floyd and Ing would be able to apply to recover
their fees and reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Ridler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated 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's motions to dismiss the class action lawsuits by Matthew
and Lori Ridler remains pending.

The Company said, "Hutchinson Technology Incorporated and all
members of our board of directors were named as defendants in four
purported shareholder class actions relating to the proposed
merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement, which were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in
November and December 2015. By order of the federal court entered
on April 20, 2016, the four federal actions were consolidated,
shareholders Matthew and Lori Ridler were appointed lead
plaintiffs and the Ridlers' counsel were appointed lead counsel."

"On May 23, 2016, the Ridlers filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") that supersedes all prior
pleadings. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that Hutchinson
Technology Incorporated and our directors violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, by filing and distributing a proxy
statement that contained materially incomplete and misleading
statements and omissions. The Consolidated Complaint also names
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, our financial
advisor in connection with the proposed Merger, as a defendant,
and alleges that Merrill Lynch also violated Section 14(a), and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by providing materially
incomplete and misleading statements and omissions in the proxy
statement. The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory and/or
rescissory damages in an unspecified amount; pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest; unspecified equitable and/or injunctive
relief; and an award of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

"On July 1, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which is pending before the federal
court."


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.
On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.
On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company
and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed
a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  On February 11, 2016, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to
be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated
or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged
in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing
frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. No
trial date has been scheduled.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER(R) Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions.

From June 2014 to February 2016, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,
as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer
of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor
(indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation
and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be
bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second
consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to
dismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and the Company has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: 19 Generic Digoxin & Doxycycline Suits Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that from March 2016 to July
2016, 19 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic
digoxin and doxycycline and the Company.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare
Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health
and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel
ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re
Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation".


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Suits by Plumbers and Delaware Valley Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the lawsuits filed by
Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan and by Delaware Valley
Health Care Coalition remain stayed.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan
and others similarly situated filed a class action against several
generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and
others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case has
since been removed to federal court in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the
suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third
party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain
generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under
the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17,
2016, this case was stayed.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a
lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory
judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution
of the federal court action.


INNOVENTIONS INTERNATIONAL: 9th Cir. Revives DiabeStevia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit balked
August 18, at the dismissal of a class action accusing
Innoventions International of "grossly" misrepresenting its
product DiabeStevia as a diabetes treatment. Though the federal
case sputtered for lack of jurisdiction, the ruling says it should
have been remanded to state court.

The case is captioned, ELSA POLO, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
INNOVENTIONS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-55916 (9th Cir.).


ISLE OF CAPRI: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, "Larson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA D. LARSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC., and IOC-KANSAS
CITY, INC. d/b/a ISLE OF CAPRI CASINO KANSAS CITY, Case No. 4:16-
cv-00902-ODS (W.D. Mo., August 17, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, the mandated federal or state minimum wage
rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over
40 in a single workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

IOC is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business located in the
state of Missouri.  IOC owns and operates IOC-KC, a corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, with its
principal place of business located in the state of Missouri.  IOC
is a developer, owner and operator of branded gaming facilities
and related dining, lodging and entertainment facilities in
regional markets in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly L. McClelland, Esq.
          Kenneth E. Cox, Esq.
          Jerome M. Patience, Esq.
          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: kmcclelland@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  kcox@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  jpatience@mccclellandlawfirm.com
                  ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


JACKSONVILLE, FL: 11th Cir. Tossed Consent Decree in Hiring Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the 11th Circuit threw out a 34-year-old consent decree aimed at
fixing discriminatory hiring practices in the Jacksonville Fire
Department, finding that a group waited too long to try to enforce
the agreement.

The decree, established in 1982, originated after a class-action
lawsuit was filed against the Fire Department of the City of
Jacksonville in 1971. The lawsuit claimed that the department
violated the civil rights of past, present and future black
employees through its racially prejudicial hiring practices.

Then-U.S. District Judge Charles Scott issued the decree, forcing
Jacksonville's fire department "to take whatever action is
necessary to hire 50 percent black and 50 percent white
individuals to fill funded positions [within the fire department
until] it equals the ratio of black citizens to white citizens in
the city of Jacksonville."

The one-to-one hiring requirement was actively upheld for a
decade, but suddenly and by its own admission, Jacksonville
stopped following the decree without officially petitioning the
district court for release.

There appeared to be a period of public acceptance over the
decree's non-enforcement. But in 1999, the debate over the lack of
diversity in the fire department ignited again.

"Out of 136 firefighters that the city hired from 1992 to 1997,
only one was African-American," August 23 ruling states. "When
existing black firefighters noticed the disparity and asked about
the consent decree, they were told that the city had stopped
hiring one-to-one because the terms of the decree had been met."

It wasn't until 2007 that Jacksonville publicly admitted it had
stopped complying with the decree. A motion to show caused was
filed against the city, seeking to hold it in contempt, and
settlement negotiations with the Jacksonville Brotherhood of
Firefighters were attempted in 2013 but were "proven unfruitful,"
the ruling states.

It was revealed during those negotiations that a two-day
evidentiary hearing was held in 1991, which demonstrated that a
memo had been sent to the city's general counsel notifying it that
the fire department had reached "the ratio of black-to-white
firefighters to black-to-white citizens in the general
population," as the decree demanded.

The memo to general counsel also stated that "no further
taxpayer's dollars [are] to be expended to seek court approval of
the city's decision to stop hiring one-to-one," court records
show.

But the reality of whether or not the decree had been fulfilled in
earnest remained unclear. In 1999, a new city ordinance was passed
which removed obstacles to minority hiring but the number of black
employees hired continued to stagnate.

A federal judge in Florida denied the Jacksonville Brotherhood of
Firefighters' motion to show cause and dissolved the 1982 consent
decree.

The 11th Circuit affirmed August 23, finding that the group had
waited too long to file its motion.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
the plaintiffs' 15-year delay was not excusable. The plaintiffs
unquestionably knew about the city's position regarding the
consent decree by at least 1999 (and likely well before that) and
yet did nothing to attempt to enforce the decree," Judge John
Rogers wrote for a three-member panel of the Atlanta-based appeals
court.

August 23 ruling finally settled the long back and forth, and
rested on numerous legal precedents including the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, which
found that "[a] consent decree must of course be modified if, as
it later turns out, one or more of the obligations placed upon the
parties has become impermissible under federal law."

"The decree, which requires that the black-to-white ratio of the
fire-department workforce reflect the black-to-white ratio of the
city's population, violates the Equal Protection Clause's
requirement that the minority composition of the workforce in
question be compared to the qualified minority population in the
relevant labor market rather than the general population," Rogers
wrote. "Further, the quota-based hiring required by the decree
would not likely pass strict scrutiny."

The 11th Circuit also found that Jacksonville did not lie or
conceal information, since the "city responded in no uncertain
terms that it believed that the goals of the consent decree had
been achieved and that 'the city did not need to get a court
order' to end compliance with the decree."

"Because it was common knowledge that the city was not abiding by
the consent decree for at least eight years prior to the
plaintiffs' filing of their motion, there is no excuse for the
plaintiffs delaying so long in bringing their motion," Rogers
wrote.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Class Action Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the claims in a class
action lawsuit are without merit, and the Company intends to
defend vigorously against them.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants").

On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned
Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON).
The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated
on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett.

The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages
in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the
motion was granted, with leave to replead.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and
it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended
Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and
public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim
with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly
knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave
to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March
23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after
argument it was taken on submission and a decision has not been
issued.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because
the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you
as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations."

The Company is a worldwide producer and marketer of children's
toys and other consumer products, principally engaged in the
design, development, production, marketing and distribution of its
diverse portfolio of products.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Inmates Complain Over Sweltering Jails
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Blinderaug, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
air inside the Jefferson Davis Parish jail was hot and musty.
Prisoners, often awakened by the morning heat, hoped for cooling
rain after nightfall.  And ice, one inmate recalled, brought
fleeting relief in the cell she called a "sweatbox."

Even though summer temperatures routinely roar past 100 degrees
here, the jail, like scores of other jails and prisons across the
country, has no air-conditioning.

"It's hot," Heidi Bourque, who was locked up this month for theft,
said of the jail as she sat in her home, where the glowing red
digits of the living room thermostat showed the temperature as a
chilling 62.  "It's miserable."

Her complaints are unlikely to move local residents, who approved
funding to build a new jail after local leaders promised two years
ago that it would not pamper inmates with air-conditioning. But
they speak to a broader debate about the threshold for when
extreme temperatures become cruel and unusual punishment.

Judges from Arizona to Mississippi to Wisconsin have declared over
the years that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution forbids
incarceration in decidedly hot or cold temperatures. Still, prison
reform activists encounter deep resistance in their quest to cool
the nation's cellblocks.

"It's almost impossible for courts to deny the constitutional
violation because extreme heat undoubtedly exposes individuals to
substantial risk of serious harm," said Mercedes Montagnes, a
lawyer for three inmates with health issues who challenged
conditions on Louisiana's death row.  "Now what we're grappling
with is the remedy."

Officials offer a range of justifications for the absence of air-
conditioning and for their reliance on cold showers, plentiful
liquids and fans to help prisoners manage in the heat. Some
contend that cooling systems are prohibitively expensive to
install, particularly in older facilities.

In places like Louisiana and Texas, sweltering states where
elected officials cherish tough-on-crime credentials, it is
politically poisonous to be perceived as coddling prisoners.  And
many officials simply say that temperatures are not anywhere near
as dire as prisoners and their lawyers claim.

"For the first 20 years of my life, I lived in a house with no
air-conditioning," said Jim Willett, the director of the Texas
Prison Museum and a former warden at the state's death house.  "I
just have a hard time sympathizing with anybody over air-
conditioning."

The Louisiana Department of Corrections declined to comment,
citing the lawsuit by Ms. Montagnes's clients, who said that they
had at times chosen to sleep "on the hard floor, in spite of the
risk of bites from fire ants, because the floor is slightly cooler
than their beds."

A spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which is
facing an array of lawsuits over the issue of jail temperatures,
including a class-action case, said in a statement that "the well-
being of staff and offenders is a top priority for the agency and
we remain committed to making sure that both are safe during the
extreme heat."

The spokesman, Jason Clark, said that 30 of his agency's 109
facilities are fully air-conditioned, but he asserted that
retrofitting all the department's other prisons would cost
hundreds of millions of dollars.

The disputes surrounding the climate of modern incarceration can
be partly traced to 1981, when the Supreme Court concluded that
"the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons."  About 35
years later, states, counties and cities are interpreting the
court's words in their own ways.

In Texas, state regulations require that temperatures in county
jails "shall be reasonably maintained between 65 degrees
Fahrenheit and 85 degrees Fahrenheit in all occupied areas." But
that standard does not apply to state prisons.

In Louisiana, the placement of a city or parish border can dictate
the relative comfort of a night in a local lockup. Pretrial
inmates here in Jefferson Davis Parish, a rural area of about
31,000 people where the heat index on a recent afternoon hit 106
degrees, spend their days and nights in the small jail on the
third floor of the courthouse.  There are fans, but no air-
conditioning.

"We don't want to make it real comfortable for them because we
don't want them to want to come back," Christopher Ivey, the chief
sheriff's deputy, said in his climate-controlled office two floors
beneath the jail.  "We try to get it and keep it at a level that
it's comfortable enough that they can survive."

Mr. Ivey, who said no parish inmate had suffered a heat-related
illness since the sheriff took office in 2012, said he believed
the jail's temperature never exceeded 80 degrees.  But a jailer
who dropped by Mr. Ivey's office suggested that temperatures
regularly reached the mid-90s.

"You don't leave there not moist," Mr. Ivey acknowledged.  Parish
officials, who have not faced a court challenge about jail
temperatures, did not agree to requests for a tour of the facility
or interviews with current inmates.

But after her release, Ms. Bourque, 25, described an environment
where inmates found little relief.

"It's hot as hell," she said.  "The church ladies come over there,
and I told her that. And she was like, 'No, I believe hell is
hotter.' And I was like, 'It's just an expression.  It's hot as
hell.'"

Inmates, lawyers and doctors described similar conditions inside
other jails across the South, and some said that temperatures
endangered the lives of prisoners with health problems.

"Once these buildings heat up in the summertime, they never really
do ever cool back down again," Keith M. Cole, a plaintiff in the
Texas class-action case, said at the Navasota prison where he is
serving a life sentence for murder and is being treated for heart
disease, diabetes and hypertension.  "Air-conditioning to me
wouldn't be a comfort.  It's a necessity -- it's a medical
necessity."

Mr. Cole, 62, said that he understood public skepticism of air-
conditioning for prisoners, and that he might have even embraced
such an opinion before he was sentenced in 1995.  But in an
interview, he said, "This isn't about comfort.  This is about life
or death."

Dressed in the plain white uniform of a Texas inmate, he spoke for
nearly an hour in the prison's air-conditioned visitation center.
"This is beautiful," he said.  "This is paradise right here.  You
couldn't ask for anything better than this."

The state said that adding air-conditioning at Mr. Cole's prison
would cost of more than $22 million, with about $478,000 in annual
operating costs.

Many of the pending cases could take years to resolve.  A federal
judge in Baton Rouge, La., ruled in Ms. Montagnes's favor in 2013,
but lawyers for the state and the prisoners are still haggling
over fixes after an appeals court's ruling.  One proposed
solution, detailed in a court filing this month, is what officials
described as a "Cajun cooler," which both sides said "essentially
consists of a combination of an ice chest, a fan and a duct that
emits cool air."

And as the court battles continue, both sides question why the
issue has become such a protracted, expensive battle.

"In the South, almost everybody has air-conditioning," said
Jeffrey S. Edwards, a lawyer for Mr. Cole.  "This isn't a luxury
anymore.  Almost everyone has it, except for these inmates."

In Jefferson Davis Parish and elsewhere, plenty of people wonder
why climate control is even before the courts.  Prisoners are
serving punishments and do not merit, as people here repeatedly
put it, "a country club jail." (Such worries are common: The
Florida Department of Corrections felt compelled to list "prisons
are air-conditioned" at the beginning on a list of
"misconceptions.")

But since the May 2014 vote here, law enforcement and civic
leaders in Jefferson Davis Parish received what they regarded as
dispiriting news: Some electronic features of the new jail will
need to be kept cool to remain operational.

So the prisoners will get air-conditioning, after all.


JOHNSON COUNTY, KS: Faces "Shophar" Suit in District of Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Johnson County, Kansas. The case
is styled Jorel Shophar and Chad Brewer, for themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Johnson County, Kansas, Thomas Foster, Kathleen Sloan, Neil B.
Foth, Sunflower House Inc., Alexandra English, Barb Sharp, and
David W. Fairbanks, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04138-SAC-KGS
(D. Kan., Aug. 18, 2016). The assigned District Judge is Hon. Sam
A. Crow.

Johnson County is a county located in the U.S. state of Kansas. As
of the 2010 census, the county population was 544,179, making it
the most populous county in Kansas. Its county seat is Olathe, and
its most populous city is Overland Park.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against Veljanoski & Wan Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juno 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 two putative securities
class action complaints were filed against Juno and its chief
executive officer, Hans Bishop, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington under the following
captions: Goce Veljanoski, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics, et al., No.
2:16-CV-01069 on July 12, 2016 (the "Veljanoski Complaint") and
Jiayi Wan, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics, et al., No. 2:16-CV-01083 on
July 13, 2016 (the "Wan Complaint").

The putative class in both the Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan
Complaint is composed of all purchasers of the Company's
securities between June 4, 2016 and July 7, 2016, inclusive. The
Veljanoski Complaint alleges material misrepresentations and
omissions in public statements regarding patient deaths in the
Company's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015. The Veljanoski
Complaint alleges that these public statements constituted
violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendant. The
Wan Complaint makes allegations and claims that are substantially
identical to those in the Veljanoski Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. The
Company has not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2016 since
any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given
the preliminary nature of the proceedings.


KAGARA: IMF Bentham to Fund Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Mariaan Webb, writing for Creamer Media's Mining Weekly, reports
that former directors of defunct base metals mining group Kagara
may face a class action suit from shareholders, litigation funder
IMF Bentham announced on Aug. 15.

The company reported that it would fund the claims of certain
current and former shareholders of Kagara, relating to alleged
misleading and deceptive statements made to the market between
September 30, 2010, and April 26, 2012.

Kagara entered into voluntary administration in April 2012 and
went into liquidation in 2014.

Piper Alderman, in Brisbane, will conduct the class action.


KLA-TENCOR: Agreement in Merger Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Kla-Tencor 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 agreement in
principle to resolve the merger-related litigation is expected to
be further memorialized in a stipulation of settlement.

In connection with the October 21, 2015 announcement of the Merger
transaction, four purported KLA-Tencor stockholders filed putative
class actions on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders. Three
actions were filed in the California Superior Court for Santa
Clara County and are captioned, Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et
al., Case No. 115CV287329, Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 115CV287331, (both filed on October 28, 2015) and Spoleto
Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552 (filed on December
29, 2015) (collectively, the "California Class Actions").

Plaintiffs in the Hedgecock and Karr actions filed amended
complaints on December 21, 2015. The California Class Actions all
name KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-Tencor Board, Lam
Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (together with Merger Sub
1 and Lam Research, the "Lam Group") as defendants. The California
Class Actions allege that the members of the KLA-Tencor Board
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing
KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Group at
an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and by making
disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially
misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the Lam Group aided and abetted
such breaches. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's
transaction with the Lam Group, as applicable, as well as an award
of damages and attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief.
The Delaware Chancery Court Class Action.

One putative class action was filed on November 10, 2015, in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and is captioned,
Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700. On December 23, 2015,
plaintiff Rooney filed an amended complaint.

The Rooney action was filed against the members of the KLA-Tencor
Board and similar to the California Class Actions alleges that the
members of the KLA-Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger
transaction with Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to
an unfair process, and by making disclosures concerning the
transaction that are materially misleading. Plaintiff Rooney seeks
to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with Lam Research,
as applicable, as well as an award of attorneys' fees, in addition
to other relief. KLA-Tencor has made an accrual with respect to
the Hedgecock, Spoleto and Rooney actions.

                Agreement in Principle to Resolve
                    Merger-Related Litigation

On or about December 29, 2015, plaintiffs in all four actions
agreed to coordinate and proceed in the California Superior Court.
On February 5, 2016, an agreement in principle was reached with
the plaintiffs in the Rooney Action, Hedgecock Action, and Spoleto
Action to settle those actions. Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, as set forth in a signed memorandum of understanding,
the parties agreed to resolve disputed legal claims and KLA-Tencor
and Lam agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding
the proposed Merger, as set forth in the Form 8-K filed by KLA-
Tencor on February 5, 2016. None of the defendants in these
actions has admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including that there
were any inadequacies in any disclosure, any breach of any
fiduciary duty, or aiding or abetting any of the foregoing. On
February 17, 2016, the California Superior Court dismissed the
Karr action pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

The agreement in principle is expected to be further memorialized
in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include
an agreement by the plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of KLA-Tencor
stockholders, to provide a release of claims of KLA stockholders
against KLA-Tencor, the Lam Group and their respective officers
and directors. Following final approval of the settlement by the
court, the Hedgecock, Spoleto, and Rooney actions will be
dismissed. The settlement will not affect the Merger consideration
to be paid to stockholders of KLA-Tencor in connection with the
acquisition of KLA-Tencor by Lam. KLA-Tencor has made an accrual
with respect to the Hedgecock, Spoleto and Rooney actions. KLA-
Tencor has determined a potential loss in excess of the amount
accrued is reasonably possible; however, based on its current
knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such
possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably
estimable.


KRAFT HEINZ: Newton Questions Selling of "Natural" Sour Cream
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NEWTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, and DAISY BRAND, LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04578-RJD-RLM (E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of misleading, deceiving, and confusing reasonable
consumers, including the Plaintiff and the Class members, by
portraying certain sour cream products as "Natural" when they
contain non-natural ingredients.

Mr. Newton alleges that from May 1, 2011, the Defendants
deceptively and misleadingly marketed their brands of sour cream
products as being Natural when, in fact, the Products contain
ingredients derived from unnatural genetically modified organisms.
Kraft sells its sour cream products at issue under the name
Breakstone.  Daisy sells its sour cream products under the brand
name Daisy.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place
of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Daisy Brand,
LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the state of Texas with its principal place of business located in
Dallas, Texas.  The Defendants are food manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  boyle@halunenlaw.com
                  moore@halunenlaw.com


KROGER CO: Among Defendants in Tainted Peas Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newline, reports that Kroger Co.
has been listed as a defendant in a recent class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of customers who became ill with listeria
following the ingestion of vegetables grown by Pictsweet Co. and
processed by CRF Frozen Foods.

According to the complaint, with the bacteria present in the
bloodstream, one in five patients on average die from listeria
infection.

Kroger's role in the distribution of tainted products was as a
merchant, so why is it listed as a defendant in this class action
suit? It is still unclear, but court documents suggest the aim
might be to get financial data about customers to pay out the
damages asserted in the claim.

Kroger sold the contaminated peas in its grocery stores, although
the product had been recalled, but California was not listed on
its website of recall locations where Pictsweet steamable peas
infected with listeria were effected.

The man who filed suit, Roger Coffelt Jr. of Compton, Calif.,
bought the vegetables at a Ralph's grocery store, a name under
which Kroger operates in California.

Attorneys filing the class action suit on behalf of Mr. Coffelt
could not be reached by phone or email.  He is represented by
attorneys Joshua Watson and Clayeo Arnold for the Arnold Law Firm
in California.

Fadi Aramouni, a food science professor at Kansas State
University, has served as a witness in cases involving
contaminated foods, including those tainted with listeria, a
naturally occurring bacteria present in most common places such as
air, water, plants and animals.

Mr. Aramoudi said illness happens because the pathogen often harms
those more at risk, such as children, elderly, immunodeficient
individuals and pregnant women.  Also, the symptoms from listeria
do not show up right away, as with other infections.  It can often
take weeks for people to notice.

Most of those forms of listeria, however, are not pathogenic to
humans and will not cause illness.  Listeria monocytogenes,
however, the form that allegedly made Coffelt and his family,
among others, sick, kills about 20 percent of patients diagnosed
with it in their bloodstream.

"In my opinion, it should not be present in ready-to-eat food
plants," Mr. Aramoudi said.  "Companies should have sanitation and
monitoring programs to make sure listeria monocytogrenes are not
contaminating the products."

Personal injury claims are not included in this case.  It is
limited to economic damages, according to court documents filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The allegations in the complaint assert that Kroger
has access to customer information stored in databases for the
club cards and financial institutions that can identify customers
to locate those impacted.

The suit also asserts that the source of poor packaging and
production processes at CRF Frozen Foods went on for as long as
three years, "possibly longer" according to the complaint, without
remedy and notes that evaluating whether such practices were known
by defendants may or may not actually be necessary.

But in addition to establishing these and other elements of a
liability for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
they seek to establish any breach of standard of care "and any
breach of those standards with respect to the defendant's
preparation, packaging, distribution, inspection, and sale of the
subject food products."

They also need to establish how responsible each party is for the
actual financial damages sought in the suit.

Kroger spokesman Keith Dailey said the company will not comment on
the pending litigation.


L'OREAL: Faces Consumer Action Over Amla Relaxer Product
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that L'Oreal markets Amla Relaxer
as a rejuvenating ritual, but the product caused hair loss and
scalp burns, consumers claim in a federal class action in
Manhattan.


LIBERTY MEDIA: MOU in Case v. SIRIUS Awaits Definitive Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 memorandum of
understanding reached in a class action lawsuit against SIRIUS XM
is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement
and court approval.

SIRIUS XM is a defendant in several purported class action suits
that allege that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on its
behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The
plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that
SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked his or her prior
consent. In one of the actions, the plaintiff alleges that SIRIUS
XM violated the TCPA's call time restrictions, and in one of the
other actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SRIUS XM violated
the TCPA's do not call restrictions. These purported class action
cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-
0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and
Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ
(M.D. Fla), and are described in Part I, Item 3., Legal
Proceedings, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2015.

On April 5, 2016, SIRIUS XM entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle these purported class action suits.  The
settlement is expected to resolve the claims of consumers
beginning in February 2008 relating to telemarketing calls to
their mobile telephones.

As part of this settlement, SIRIUS XM will agree to pay $35
million in cash (from which notice, administration and other costs
and attorneys' fees will be paid), to offer participating class
members the option of receiving three months of SIRIUS XM's Select
service for no charge, and to enter into agreements to make
modifications to the practices of certain of SIRIUS XM's call
center vendors.  The memorandum of understanding is subject to the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval,
neither of which can be assured.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: N.Y. Class Action in Preliminary Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in New York.

On March 11, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento
("Mr. Vento"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr.
Gordo"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company and
Messrs. Vento and Gordo made false and misleading statements
regarding the financial performance and guidance during the
alleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The
complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court
deems proper.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against it and the Company
does not believe that the outcome of this legal proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Because the
case is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate the
likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if
any.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Suit Over Stadium Safety Netting Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. appeared likely August 23,
to advance a case that says California baseball stadiums need more
safety netting for stray balls hit as fast as 100 miles per hour.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers previously dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction portions of a 2015 class action seeking
additional safety netting at Major League Baseball stadiums
nationwide.  But she hinted during oral argument on August 23,
that concerns from the league's own pitchers may sway her to allow
claims against California clubs to move forward.

Oakland A's fan Gail Payne and two other named plaintiffs said in
their lawsuit that many baseball players allow their families to
sit only in sections protected by netting or "way up" in the
stands, where foul balls and shards from shattered bats are less
likely to hit them.

A sharply hit foul ball can reach peak forces of 8,300 pounds
after leaving a bat, enough to stop a small car, the plaintiffs
say.

Fans, often children, have been blinded and had their skulls
fractured by stray balls and bats, according to the lawsuit. A 14-
year-old boy died at Dodger Stadium after being hit by a ball in
1970.

"One of the things that has always concerned me about this case
are the allegations that the pitchers themselves do not allow
their children to sit in those sections," Judge Rogers said at the
hearing. "Then I see the exhibit from Dodger Stadium and it's
interesting to me how often children are listed as the victims of
the injury. Isn't it time for a jury to decide if something is
there? "

In dismissing claims against out-of-state clubs in April, Rogers
ordered more jurisdictional discovery on the probability of being
injured while sitting in specific sections of the Oakland Coliseum
and Dodger Stadium.

Rogers on August 23, still questioned whether the plaintiffs have
standing to sue, calling the league's fan-injury statistics
"incredibly small."

Major League Baseball attorney Adam Lauridsen agreed, saying
statistics show that a person sitting in an unprotected section of
stadium stands a 0.003 percent chance of being hit.

"This is an exceedingly small risk and no basis for finding
standing upon it," Lauridsen said.

But plaintiffs' counsel Steve Berman said the league has reported
"Code 2 - Life Threatening" injuries at Dodger Stadium and does
not tally the number of injuries at some parks.

"We're talking about very, very significant risk," Berman said.
"The complaint sets forth a breadth of examples from almost every
ballpark in the country. There's no reason to think this ballpark
without netting like other ballparks would not present the same
risk of injury."

Rogers asked whether standing can be established through fear of
injury.

"Fear alone is not enough," Lauridsen said, citing the U.S.
Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons.
There, the court ruled motorist Adolph Lyons lacked standing to
sue Los Angeles Police Department solely because he feared an
officer might put him in a life-threatening chokehold based upon
previously having been choked by officers during a traffic stop.

"Are you suggesting then that the fears of all of those pitchers
are unfounded?" Rogers asked.

"You have to look at whether the underlying risk motivating the
fear is a certainly impending risk," Lauridsen said. "Their fears
are not based upon a certainly impending risk."

Rogers did not indicate when she will rule.

Berman is with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle, Lauridsen
with Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco.


MAURICE BLACKBURN: Faces Staff Ire Over Latest Wage Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Vogler, writing for The Australian, reports that lawyers and
support staff working for a law firm that prides itself on
"fighting for fair" could take strike action after rejecting the
company's latest wage offer.

Australian Services Union assistant national secretary Linda White
told The Australian the overwhelming majority of its 400 members
working for Maurice Blackburn, a law firm known for its links to
the Labor Party, voted to take industrial action after rejecting
the firm's offer.  Meetings are being held across the country to
determine exactly what action would be taken, with everything from
short strikes to "working to rule" on the table. "We've got a
range of actions and the choice is with the members," Ms. White
said.  "It may be small things.  It might be strike action.  I'm
sure Maurice Blackburn thinks it's fair.  Their employees don't."

Ms. White said she hoped the two parties could reach an agreement
to negate the action taking place.  Under the Fair Work Act, the
union has to give the company three days' notice of planned
industrial action and must take that action within 30 days
following the ballot.

It is understood the company was offering a 2.5 per cent wage
increase for some workers and had passed this on in July as
negotiations continued.  The company has rejected any suggestion
it was not negotiating in good faith.  "We value our workforce and
our record speaks for itself -- for 97 years we have fought for
the rights of working people and the need to treat all employees
with respect, just as we continue to do today," a spokeswoman
said.

"We have also always supported the role of the union movement in
advocating for members, which is why we continue to respect the
right of the union to undertake their role in our negotiations as
they see fit, and that will not change.

"While it is not appropriate to go into specifics of the
agreement, the firm has negotiated in good faith with the ASU, as
we should, in putting forward an offer that is well above average
for the sector."

Ms. White said while some staff would receive the 2.5 per cent
increase, some lawyers would not.  The union has also taken issue
with the bonus system proposed by the company.

Exactly what type of industrial action members choose to take
should be known over the next few days, Ms. White said.

The Australian on Aug. 14 revealed Maurice Blackburn was facing
fresh criticism over its management of class-action settlements,
with clients poisoned by toxic soy milk angered by the firm's fees
for handling the $25 million settlement.

Maurice Blackburn was also forced to defend its handling of the
Black Saturday bushfire class action after survivors raised
concerns about payment delays and the amount lawyers were making
from the action.


MCDONALD'S CORP: California Labor Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a California labor lawsuit that claimed McDonald's is responsible
for how its franchisees manage their pay has been given the go-
ahead to proceed as a class action lawsuit.  Workers at five
McDonald's restaurants in California filed the lawsuit, alleging
the franchise owner -- who owned all five restaurants -- violated
wage and hour laws, failed to pay overtime, and failed to pay
minimum wage.

The franchisee has already settled its portion of the lawsuit for
approximately $700,000, but McDonald's has argued it is not
responsible for how franchisees operate their businesses or manage
working conditions.  Plaintiffs, however, argued McDonald's
provides franchisees with overtime tracking software that is
purposely reduces overtime pay.

Here's how plaintiffs allege it works: some employees work a shift
that starts late in the evening and carries on into the next
morning, covering one shift but two separate dates.  They might
then start another shift later on that second date, after a few
hours off.  The software reportedly assigns all hours worked on a
shift to the date the shift started, not the date the hours were
worked.  So while they may work more than eight hours in a 24-hour
period, because the hours from the first shift were counted
towards the first day, the employees aren't paid overtime for that
second day.

In allowing the motion to continue as a class action lawsuit, the
Judge James Donato found that employees reasonably believed
McDonald's was their employer, according to The New York Times
(7/28/16).

Certification of the class means between 400 and 500 employees
will be part of the action against McDonald's.  Parts of the class
action were dismissed, and the judge ruled that under some
theories, McDonald's is not a joint employer of workers at
franchise restaurants, but overtime claims were granted class
action status and the judge did find McDonald's could be liable as
an "ostensible agent."

This means that, given the circumstances, even though employees
were mistaken about McDonald's being their employer, they may have
had valid reasons for believing the franchise owners operated
under McDonald's authority. T he judge found that the plaintiffs
showed the ostensible agency argument could be made on a classwide
basis.

Plaintiffs allege the pay violations go back to 2010 and are
currently in effect.

The lawsuit is Ochoa, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., case
number 3:14-cv-02098, in the US District Court, Northern District
of California.


MCGOVERN & CO: Donnelly Seeks Judgment for $36,670 Plus Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONNELLY MECHANICAL CORP., Individually and on behalf of all other
lienors, claimants or creditors for work, and/or materials due and
owing in connection with the construction and improvement of
certain real property v. McGOVERN & COMPANY, LLC, DANIEL G.
McGOVERN and "John Doe" said name being fictitious, true name
being unknown to plaintiff, person intended being an officer or
director of McGOVERN & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 654343/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty., August 17, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants have failed, neglected and refused:

   -- to hold certain funds monies in trust for the benefit of
      the Plaintiff and the other labor and materialmen similarly
      situated; and

   -- to pay those funds owed to the Plaintiff, and to keep
      accurate, adequate, necessary and proper records of the
      receipts and disbursements of these funds, and otherwise
      violated the terms of the trust provisions and the
      fiduciary relationship as set forth in the Lien Law of the
      State of New York.

The Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant amounting to
$36,670, together with interest from January 26, 2015, and costs
and disbursements of the action.

McGovern & Company LLC is a New York domestic limited liability
company involved in construction business.  Daniel J. McGovern is
a resident of the New York and is an officer, director or person
controlling the business and assets of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart S. Zisholtz, Esq.
          ZISHOLTZ & ZISHOLTZ, LLP
          170 Old Country Road, Suite 300
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-2200
          E-mail: stu@zzllp.com


MEDPARTNERS: Fraud Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for, reports that a Jefferson County judge on
Aug. 15 gave final approval to a $310 million settlement of a
lawsuit that claims MedPartners, a health care company once led by
former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, lied to more than 20,000
stockholders about how much the company could pay them under the
settlement of a 1990s lawsuit.

The new settlement is one of the largest fraud recoveries in
Alabama legal history, according to a statement from Hare, Wynn,
Newell & Newton, LLP, one of the law firms that represented
investors.

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Pat Ballard issued the final order
after a hearing to determine, among other things, whether a
preliminary settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

After fees and other administrative costs are deducted, the
remainder of the $310 million settlement of the class-action
lawsuit will be doled out to the investors filing approved claims.

"This class has waited patiently for more than 12 years for their
investment losses to be recovered," Scott Powell, attorney at
Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton and lead counsel for the class, stated
in a law firm statement.

The class is made up of more than 20,000 investors who purchased
MedPartners securities from 1996-1998.

Lawyers for the class are: Mr. Powell, John Haley, Ralph Cook,
Bruce McKee, Brian Vines and Tempe Smith of Hare, Wynn, Newell &
Newton, LLP and John Somerville of Somerville, LLC; and Tim
Francis of Francis Law, LLC.

History

The lawsuit against CVS Caremark Corp., the company that ended up
owning the former MedPartners, is a class-action litigation in
which investors claim they lost $3.2 billion in a 1990s securities
fraud.

Twenty one lawsuits were filed by investors in 1998 against
MedPartners.  Those lawsuits claimed MedPartners made false and
misleading statements to the public about its financial condition
and prospects at the time.

The lawsuits were combined and settled for $56 million after
MedPartners claimed it was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and
that $50 million was all its insurance would cover.

However, five years later investor John Lauriello, one of the
original plaintiffs, filed a new lawsuit claiming MedPartners lied
about having limited insurance coverage during the settlement
negotiations.  The lawsuit claims that in October 1998, prior to
the original settlement being finalized, MedPartners paid for
unlimited insurance coverage.

If the unlimited insurance coverage had been known at the time,
Mr. Lauriello's suit claims, investors could have negotiated a
higher settlement amount.  Sam Johnson and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System later became the named plaintiffs.

MedPartners changed its name in 2000 to Caremark and in 2007
merged with CVS.

A trial was to have been held this spring, but was postponed and
both sides worked out a settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement insurance company AIG will pay
$230 million and CVS will pay $80 million.

In the settlement CVS denies it has any liability for the claims
asserted against them and believes it has good defenses to those
claims.  But the company agreed to enter into the agreement "to
eliminate the burdens, distractions, expense, and uncertainty of
further litigation and thereby to put this controversy to rest
fully and finally by obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice
of the Class Action," according to the settlement.

CVS issued a statement when the preliminary settlement was
approved by Ballard.

"This relates to a 1999 settlement of a securities class action by
MedPartners, the former parent company of Caremark and is not
related in any way to the business practices of CVS Health, which
was formed from the merger between CVS and Caremark in 2007,"
according to the statement from Mike DeAngelis , Senior Director,
Corporate Communications CVS Health.

"The company denies that its predecessor entity engaged in any
wrongdoing and denies any liability in the action," Mr. DeAngelis
wrote.  "A settlement was reached in order to eliminate the
burdens, expenses and uncertainty of continued litigation.  We are
pleased that the settlement agreement has been preliminarily
approved by the court and we look forward to putting this matter
behind us."

The original fraud allegations from the 1990s stemmed from a
proposed deal by former MedPartners CEO Larry House for competitor
PhyCor Inc. to pay $7 billion to buyout MedPartners. The deal,
billed at the time as the biggest deal in Alabama history, fell
through after PhyCor found questions about MedPartner's practices
and bookkeeping.

Mr. House had been chief operating officer of HealthSouth at one
point before taking over as CEO of MedPartners.

Mr. Scrushy, who had also been involved in MedPartner's founding
while leading HealthSouth, for a time served on the MedPartner's
board and later as its interim CEO.


MICHIGAN: Paid More Than $41 Million to Settle Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Brad Devereaux, writing for MLive, reports that Michigan paid more
than $41 million, while receiving more than $278 million in
lawsuit settlement and judgment payments over a year, a new report
by the Senate Fiscal Agency shows.

Here are seven things about lawsuit payments and settlements made
and received by the state, according to the annual Senate Fiscal
Agency's latest "Status of lawsuits involving the state of
Michigan."  It's based on reports filed by state departments and
agencies and created pursuant to Michigan law.

1. The Department of Corrections made payments in 30 cases
totaling $26.7 million, accounting for about 64 percent of the
payments made by the state in Fiscal Year 2014-15.

The largest was $25 million in a class action settlement over
allegations of sexual assault and harassment by male prison
guards.  After jury verdicts in the 1996 lawsuit and a related
case, the state agreed to a settlement in 2009 to pay $100 million
for class members, costs, and attorney fees.  The state paid its
final payment, the largest of six, of $25 million on Oct. 15,
2014.

2. The Department of State Police made payments in five cases
totaling $7.9 million.

The largest was a $7.7 million settlement in a wrongful death and
personal injury lawsuit that arose out of a two-vehicle crash on
July 3, 2014, in Flint.  A state trooper attempted to stop a
motorist for a traffic violation and when the suspect vehicle sped
away, the trooper pursued the vehicle and subsequently ran a red
light, broad-siding another vehicle and killing one of its
passengers and critically injuring another.

3. The Department of Technology, Management, and Budget made
payments in four cases, totaling $3.5 million.  The largest was
$1.8 million for the DeBoer freedom-to-marry case.  The Department
of Attorney General reported paying $108,620 in DeBoer attorney
fees.

The next-highest payment by the DTMB was $950,000 in a lawsuit
asking a Federal court to strike down a State law that banned many
public entities from providing health care insurance to the
domestic partners of their employees.

4. The Department of Treasury lists $408,032.84 from the general
fund being paid for judgments and $1,147,278.74 paid for
settlements in "Tax refund cases," and notes specific information
is prohibited from disclosure under Michigan law.

5. The smallest amount the state paid is a judgment of $13.70 in
Michigan Department of Transportation v. Brian's Auto Parts, a
case in which MDOT sued, alleging encroachment, when a property
owner parked vehicles on MDOT's right of way adjacent to U.S. 31
near Stronach Road in Manistee.  The vehicles were a safety
concern, MDOT argued.

A Manistee County District Court judge found in favor of MDOT, and
Brian's Auto Parts appealed to circuit court, where a ruling said
it was a case of obstruction, not encroachment.  The ruling led to
an agreement between MDOT and the property owner to install a
curb. MDOT paid $13.70 to the property owner for "UPS costs," the
agency said.

6. The state paid more than $378 million over a decade in
settlements and judgments.

Of the 69 cases that resulted in payments, 12 were judgments
totaling $2.3 million, and 57 were settlements totaling $39.5
million.  Payments in FY 2014-15 were $28.8 million lower than the
$70.6 million reported in FY 2013-14.

7. The state brought in $3.3 billion in lawsuit settlement and
judgment payments from FY 2005-06 to FY 2014-15.

That includes more than $278 million in FY 2014-15.  The largest
payment received in the most recent year was a $190.9 million
listed under the department of Attorney General from annual
payments under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement to resolve
public health-related claims filed by Michigan and other states
against the nation's major tobacco companies.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gongora-Ownby Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSARIO GONGORA-OWNBY, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29
USC 216(B) v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC. AND MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF
TEXAS, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00379 (W.D. Tex., August 17, 2016),
alleges that the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, but was not paid overtime for any of the hours worked in
excess of 40.

Molina Healthcare, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  Molina
Healthcare of Texas, Inc., is a Texas corporation.  Molina
Healthcare, Inc., a FORTUNE 500 company, provides managed health
care services under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through
the state insurance marketplaces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          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


MORGAN STANLEY: 401(k) Plan Beneficiary Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Echoing recent class actions against private universities, a
beneficiary of Morgan Stanley's 401(k) plan says mismanagement of
the plan has caused "staggering losses of hundreds of millions of
dollars."  The case is in Manhattan federal court.


MOTI DOTAN: Faces NIS10MM Arab Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Times of Israel reports that two weeks after causing an uproar for
saying he didn't want Arabs in his community pools, Lower Galilee
Regional Council leader Moti Dotan has been hit by a
NIS10 million class action lawsuit.

The Coalition Against Racism filed papers against Dotan at
Nazareth's District Court on Aug. 14, Channel 2 reported.

The plaintiffs claimed Israel's entire Arab population was
eligible to demand compensation for potential discrimination at
the council's pools.

Interviewed on the Kol Chai radio station on July 28, Dotan, whose
council represents several kibbutzim and Jewish towns in the
Galilee, said, "I don't hate Arabs, but I don't want them at my
pools.  I don't go to their pools, either."

Saying his views were reflective of "cultural differences" and not
racism, he cited different dress norms and "hygiene culture."

The plaintiffs claimed Israel's entire Arab population was
eligible to demand compensation for potential discrimination at
the council's pools.

Interviewed on the Kol Chai radio station on July 28, Dotan, whose
council represents several kibbutzim and Jewish towns in the
Galilee, said, "I don't hate Arabs, but I don't want them at my
pools. I don't go to their pools, either."

Saying his views were reflective of "cultural differences" and not
racism, he cited different dress norms and "hygiene culture."


MURRAY GOULBURN: Class Action Mulled Over Milk Price Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Brooks, writing for Huffington Post, report that dairy
farmers are now sending their cows to abattoirs, as their weight
in kilograms is more valuable than their milk following the cuts
to milk prices this year.

The ABC's Four Corners revealed heartbreaking stories from inside
the national dairy crisis on Aug. 15, as farmers begin selling up
their farms, or sending their cows to the abattoirs.

In April, Australia's biggest milk processor Murray Goulburn
slashed milk prices paid to farmers from $6 a kilogram (for milk
solids) to less than $5 a kilogram.

Dairy farmers were soon being paid less than it cost to produce
the milk.  Moreover, farmers were told prices were backdated and
they would need to pay back the difference -- about $200 million
between 2,500 farmers -- according to the ABC.

New Zealand dairy company Fonterra soon slashed its prices as
well.

Dairy farmer Kathleen Johnston is selling her New South Wales farm
after her family worked out they would be losing $70,000 a year
under the new prices.

"The very minute that we got the letter that said that's what the
price is going to be, we decided, 'no, we can't keep going like
this', that we would finish up," Ms. Johnston told Four Corners.

Lawyer David Burstyner is in discussions to launch a class action
on behalf of dairy farmers.

"I ask myself the question: why does a processor think it can get
away with retrospectively changing the price, with clawing back
money already paid for a product?" Mr. Burstyner told the ABC.

"I've looked at the contracts.  I see no clear right to it.  I've
listened to the statements that have been said for ten months as
to the price that will be paid, and the only answer I can come up
with as to why the company does it is that they don't ask
themselves, 'Is it legal?' They ask themselves, 'Can I get away
with it?'"

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby
Joyce were scheduled to meet with Murray Goulburn management in
Canberra on Aug. 16, and Fonterra.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Avenatti Offers Hall of Fame Game Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for Profootball Talk, reports that on Aug.
11, lawyer Michael Avenatti filed a nationwide class action aimed
at obtaining full and complete compensation for all losses
incurred by fans who attended the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame Game, which
was canceled due to mishandled preparation of the field.  On Aug.
15, Avenatti sent a letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell with a
unique settlement offer.

Mr. Avenatti is willing to resolve the case now, for payment of
$450 to each person who held a ticket to the game.  The amount
includes no fees for the lawyers, along with a commitment from Mr.
Avenatti that no fees will be taken from the settlement amount or
otherwise sought from the NFL or the Hall of Fame.
Mr. Mr. Avenatti estimates that the actual expenses to attend the
game averaged more than $700 per ticketholder.

With a capacity of 22,375, that's a total payout of just over $10
million.  Appearing on PFT Live, Mr. Avenatti said that the league
already has spent more than $20 million to defend itself in the
Super Bowl XLV ticket fiasco litigation.

"As shown by the above offer," Mr. Avenatti writes in the letter,
a copy of which PFT has obtained, "the fans are not seeking
'jackpot justice' or a lottery ticket as a result of what
happened.  They merely want to get a significant amount of their
hard-earned money back."

The offer remained open until 12:01 p.m. ET on August 19. Mr.
Avenatti vows that, if the dispute isn't resolved by then, the
case will be litigated to conclusion, with all damages and fees
sought.

It's a smart P.R. move for Mr. Avenatti and his clients.  If the
NFL rejects the offer, Mr. Avenatti and his clients will be able
to proceed aggressively, shrugging and pointing to the August 15
letter if anyone ever complains that they are overreaching.

Should the NFL accept the offer?  Ultimately, the NFL's total bill
in defending itself against this case will likely surpass $10
million.  But a quick and easy settlement in this case may
encourage others with grievances against the league to sue, and
that's not the kind of precedent any large business likes to
establish.

Besides, how will the lawyers representing the NFL ever make their
money if the NFL doesn't park a gigantic cash cow in the well-
marbled lobby of the firm's D.C. and/or New York offices?


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Neuharth Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Neuharth moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA NEUHARTH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01133 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NBTY INC: Faces "Gates" Suit in Southern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against NBTY, Inc. The case is captioned
Matthew Gates and Carlos Solis, Individually And On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NBTY, Inc. and United
States Nutrition, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02090-AJB-
WVG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Anthony
J. Battaglia.

NBTY, formerly known as Nature's Bounty, Inc., is an American
manufacturer of vitamins and nutritional supplements which are
distributed under many third party brands in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrei Armas, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 912
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: andrei@kazlg.com


NESICH: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella-Tainted Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dror Halavy, writing for Hamodia, reports that the Health Ministry
on Aug. 14 evening pulled the license of the Nesich company to
manufacture tehina products over revelation that the company
distributed salmonella-tainted products -- a move that led the
company on Aug. 14 to accuse the Ministry of "playing favorites"
and picking on Nesich, because it is a relatively small company,
while leaving Unilever Israel alone, although its salmonella
scandal was just as severe.

The first class-action lawsuits in the scandal were filed on
Aug. 14 against Nesich and against Shamir, the company that used
the Nesich raw tehina to manufacture ready-made salads under its
own brand name and on behalf of other brands.  After the discovery
of tainted salads, Shamir recalled all the salads bearing its
name, as did the numerous others -- mainly supermarkets, which
sell salads made by Shamir that they market under their own names.
Thousands of salads were collected and presumably destroyed.

In addition to Shamir and Nesich, two supermarket chains --
Supersol and Yochannanoff -- were named in the class-action suit
filed in a Lod court.  The companies are being sued for NIS 6.7
billion, and attorneys claim to represent a class of tens of
thousands of consumers who are plaintiffs, and will get NIS 1,000
in a settlement.  The consumers say that they either consumed some
of the salads and were forced to get medical attention in the wake
of the publicity over the scandal, or that they felt betrayed by
the stores and brands they were loyal to over the years.

The court ordered the defendants on Aug. 15 to respond to the
suit, after which it will decide whether or not to certify it as a
class-action suit.

In response to the suit, Shamir issued a statement saying that it
"took the health of consumers very seriously.  When we were
alerted to the situation at the Nesich factory, we decided not to
take a chance with the health of the public, and instituted a
recall of our products using raw material from Nesich.
Unfortunately, Nesich did not inform us of the situation, even
though it had knowledge of the problem for at least 17 days before
the revelations.  We are considering our own legal actions against
them."

Meanwhile, Nesich is out of business for now, forbidden by the
Health Ministry to process or sell raw tehina.  In a statement,
the Ministry said that Nesich acted in an "irresponsible,
unprofessional, and careless manner.  After a hearing and
investigation that continued for many hours, we have decided to
prevent the company from producing and selling its products. The
company must now spend its time tracking down and destroying
contaminated materials and products."

Speaking on Army Radio on Aug. 15, Ronen Tzur, a spokesperson for
Nesich, compared the tainting of the tehina with that of the other
major salmonella story in recent weeks -- the tainting of dozens
of tons of cornflakes and other cereals manufactured by Unilever
Israel under its Telma brand.  Cereal production at the Arad plant
where the contamination was found was ongoing, and the Health
Ministry declared that the plant was safe, and that all
contamination had been eliminated

Mr. Tzur said that the Health Ministry was being "tough" on
Nesich, while letting Unilever Israel off the hook.  "It is, of
course, much easier to take a tough stance against a small factory
in the Galilee than against other factories.  If they would close
down other factories like they closed Nesich I am sure that the
Ministry would come up with different findings."

In response to those comments, MK Itzik Shmueli (Zionist Camp)
said that the circumstances certainly warranted the response.
"When the Health Ministry finds contamination in a factory,
obviously they need to take aggressive action before the product
reaches consumers."


NESTLE PURINA: Must Face Class Action Over Beggin' Dog Treats
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Barr, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that a
judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Nestle Purina
PetCare in which a New York man claims the company fools consumers
into thinking its Beggin' dog treats are made mostly with real
bacon.

The proposed class action lawsuit, brought a year ago by
Paul Kacocha of Dutchess County, New York, said that "Beggin"
sounds like "bacon," but bacon is 10th on the list of ingredients
and the product is made mostly of "filler," while its packaging
and promotion tout real bacon.  The lawsuit said Nestle Purina
violated New York consumer-protection laws against false and
deceptive advertising.

St. Louis-based Nestle Purina, part of Swiss firm Nestle SA, had
asked U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas of the Southern District
of New York to dismiss the case with the argument that the
products' advertising, marketing and packaging wouldn't mislead a
reasonable consumer, Reuters reports.

Judge Karas denied the company's bid to dismiss the lawsuit,
saying it was too early in the case to conclude that a reasonable
consumer would know enough about Beggin' treats ingredients to
assume bacon wouldn't be a main ingredient, the news agency
reports.

"For a product like dog food, the court is skeptical that the
gradient between correctness and unreasonableness is so steep,"
Judge Karas wrote in his ruling.  He said that had the plaintiff
alleged he had seen a Beggin' strips ad featuring the tagline
"Dogs don't know its not bacon," he might have reached a different
conclusion.

But Judge Karas did dismiss allegations about a statement on
Nestle Purina's website that the treats were made with bacon,
noting that it was true, Reuters reports.

Mr. Kacocha's legal counsel told the news agency he was pleased
with the court's "nuanced and thoughtful analysis."

Bill Salzman, Nestle Purina spokesman, told Reuters the company
believed the court's ruling shows Purina would ultimately win.
"The notion that anyone would actually think we're selling strips
of bacon is nonsense," he said.


NEW YORK: Police Dep't Faces Civil Forfeiture Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaveh Waddell, writing for The Atlantic, reports that last summer,
Kenneth Clavasquin was arrested in front of the Bronx apartment he
shared with his mother.  While the 23-year-old was being
processed, the New York Police Department took his possessions,
including his iPhone, and gave him a receipt detailing the items
in police custody.  That receipt would be his ticket to getting
back his stuff after his case ended.

But the recovery process would soon turn into a nightmare.
Mr. Clavasquin's case was dismissed on December 8, 2015, and one
day later, he took a court document proving the dismissal to the
NYPD property clerk's office.  He was told that the department had
classified his possessions as arrest evidence, to give the
district attorney the option of considering them in the case.  But
the district attorney didn't, and now that the case was over, the
classification meant Mr. Clavasquin was about to enter a
bureaucratic obstacle course.

Mr. Clavasquin needed to get a release from the district
attorney's office stating that his property would no longer be
needed for evidence.  Over the following three months, he
repeatedly called the assistant district attorney assigned to his
case, but he neither got a release nor a written explanation of
why he was being denied one.

Then, with the help of an attorney at the Bronx Defenders, a
public-defender office that had been representing him since the
day after his arrest, Mr. Clavasquin sent a formal written request
for the district attorney's release.  He got no response.

Mr. Clavasquin still hasn't gotten his phone back -- but he had to
continue paying for its service contract as it remained locked up
in an NYPD facility.

His ordeal is a common one.  Earlier this year, the Bronx
Defenders filed a class-action lawsuit against New York City that
named three plaintiffs: Mr. Clavasquin and two other men who were
also given the runaround when they tried to pick up their
property, including their cellphones, after an arrest.  The
lawsuit alleges that the city has shown a "policy, pattern, and
practice" of unconstitutionally depriving people of their property
after an arrest, without due process.

There are two avenues available to the government for seizing
items that were used to commit a crime, or cash that was made
unlawfully.  If a person is convicted of a crime, the government
can use a legal tool called criminal forfeiture that allows it to
confiscate property that was involved.  Civil forfeiture, on the
other hand, does not require a criminal charge -- only a suspicion
that a piece of property was involved in a crime, or that it was
obtained illegally.

But neither of those legal processes were used against
Mr. Clavasquin, his coplaintiffs, and the estimated "hundreds if
not thousands" of others just in New York City that they represent
in the lawsuit.  Instead, they got caught in legal limbo: When
their property was classified as evidence after their arrest,
slow-moving bureaucracy and red tape turned what should be a
routine transaction -- getting back personal property after the
state no longer has any use for it -- into a near --impossibility.

In New York, the multi-step process required to get the NYPD to
release possessions can be opaque and circuitous.  When the Bronx
Defenders circulated a questionnaire in 2014 among its clients who
had possessions taken from them at the time of arrest, nearly half
said they were never even given the itemized voucher that Mr.
Clavasquin received.

Even with that voucher in hand, petitioning the district
attorney's office for the necessary forms to release items
categorized as evidence can be fruitless: More often than not,
requests to the district attorney's office -- whether phoned in,
written, or emailed -- go unanswered, said Adam Shoop, a Bronx
Defenders attorney who helped bring the class-action lawsuit
against the city.  The only reliable way to force a response is to
file an administrative appeal, a legal tool that the average non-
lawyer almost certainly wouldn't be able to use on his or her own,
Mr. Shoop said.

If someone is able to jump through all the hoops and obtain a
district attorney's release, there's one final hurdle: The NYPD
property clerk, which actually holds on to the items, requires two
forms of ID before releasing any property.  Drumming up two forms
of ID can be difficult on its own, but it's made harder still if
the person's wallet, which may contain a driver's license, is in
police custody. (The property clerk won't count a seized license
as a valid form of ID.)  When that's the case, the person has to
notarize an authorization for someone else to pick up the items on
their behalf.

Of the items that might be seized during an arrest, cars,
cellphones, and wallets with cash are among the most valuable.
Cellphones are especially likely to be categorized as arrest
evidence, throwing up additional hurdles to recovery. (Mr. Shoop
says that people arrested on drug-related charges are most likely
to get their phones categorized as evidence.)

If a phone is taken and is hard to get back, not only does its
owner have to keep paying for service -- or pay an early
termination fee, if it's under contract -- but he or she loses a
basic tool of modern life.  Younger, lower-income, non-white, and
uneducated people are particularly likely to depend on their
smartphones as their only way of accessing the internet, and some
lower-income families may only have one smartphone.

All manner of other things get taken, too.  James King, a staff
attorney at the Public Defender Service for the District of
Columbia, says his clients often want to get their winter coats
back after an arrest.  "Since they're hiring us, they can't afford
attorneys," Mr. King said.  "These are people who are poor."  But
the hunt to get their coat back sometimes takes so long that, even
if it's ultimately successful, winter has ended by the time the
coat is returned.


NEW YORK, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Brooks" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DERRICK BROOKS, CLIFTON
DeMECO, and BRIAN BLOWERS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. SAMUEL D. ROBERTS, as Commissioner of the
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01025-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), ask the Court to certify the
matter pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 14, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Saima Akhtar, Esq.
          Susan C. Antos, Esq.
          EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
          119 Washington Ave., 3rd floor
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: (518) 462-6831
          Facsimile: (518) 935-2852
          E-mail: sakhtar@empirejustice.org
                  santos@empirejustice.org

               - and -

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          Petra T. Tasheff, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: cohan@nclej.org
                  tasheff@nclej.org


NIANTIC INC: Michigan Couple Files Pokemon Go Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
John Steckroth, writing for Click on Detroit, reports that the
"Pokemon Go" craze is moving into the next phase -- lawsuits.

Scott Dodich and Jayme Gotts-Dodich, of St. Clair Shores, filed a
class action lawsuit against Niantic, The Pokemon Company and
Nintendo.

The local couple believes the placement of a Pokemon Gym and
Pokestops at Wahby Park has turned their neighborhood into "a
nightmare."

The couple lives on a private cul-de-sac and alleges that over
several weeks, Pokemon Go players parked their vehicles on their
street and blocked driveways.  The couple also alleges that
players trespassed on lawns, trampled landscaping and peered into
windows.

The complaint also alleges that when Jayme Gotts-Dodich asked a
Pokemon Go player to leave her property, the player told her to
"shut up b****, or else."

The couple has requested the removal of the Pokestops and Pokmon
Gym using the designated request forms on the company's website to
no avail and have received generic responses.

The suit alleges that the intentional, unauthorized placement of
Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on or near private property constitutes
a continuing invasion of use and enjoyment.  Due to the ignored
repeated requests for removal, the couple believes that Niantic is
liable for nuisance and that all defendants have been unjustly
enriched.


NIANTIC INC: Nanaimo Woman Joins Pokemon Go Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nealon, writing for Chek News, reports that after her son's
memorial was used a Pokemon Go site, a Nanaimo woman has joined a
class action suit against the apps developer.

It's been just under a month since the wildly popular Pokemon Go
app was launched in Canada.

Crowds are in all kinds of spots looking to catch digital
critters.

While some are happy to see these players.

"We've got a lot of small to medium sized businesses that are
taking advantage of this phenomenon and becoming Pokestops and
Pokegyms," says Trina Mousseau of Tourism Victoria.

There are others who would like to see them go away.

"Having them in cemeteries, I mean people who visit their family
members who have passed don't want people playing games," says
Jenny Latimer of Nanaimo.

Ms. Latimer's two year old son Kevin passed away in 2004 and says
swarms of Pokemon players have been lured to his memorial site.

"I was very afraid to have it damaged, brought a lot of worries to
myself and it was a huge set back and I think that they should
make changes and apologize to the people that they've affected
negatively."

Now Ms. Latimer is joining a class action lawsuit against the app
developer, Niantic Inc.

It started in Alberta when one couple sought justice when their
private property was allegedly used in the app as a Pokemon gym.

"A gym should be a public place," says Barbie Schaeffer, the lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"It shouldn't be a home, and then it started."

"People coming through the windows, looking through the windows,
looking through doors, trying to come over the fence."

Ms. Schaeffer adds, "The better of it all was someone trying to
throw a drone into our yard to play the game.

"The claim of unjust enrichment is on the basis that the company
has been significantly enriched at our client's expense," says
Calgary-based lawyer Clint Docken who launched the suit against
Niantic.

Ms. Latimer emailed the company, asking the memorial location be
removed from the app.  It took two weeks for Niantic to respond.

"It was just a very generic, cold message that it was going to be
removed," says Ms. Latimer.

"There was no apology or anything for the disrespect."

Ms. Latimer adds "it was just, yeah, it was about two lines."

Ms. Latimer expects Niantic to learn from her experience.

"I hope they realize the amount, the hurt and pain that they're
causing people and the privacy that they're invading on other
people."

A judge still has to certify the suit before it can proceed.


NIKE RETAIL: "Rodriguez" Class Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco certified Isaac Rodriguez's class action claim that Nike
Retail Services fails to pay workers for time spent being
inspected or waiting to be inspected after they clock out.

A copy of the Court's Aug. 19 decision is available at
https://is.gd/JEHL1j from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned, ISAAC RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. NIKE RETAIL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant., Case No. 5:14-cv-01508-BLF (N.D. Cal).


NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Violates ERISA, "Divane" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA L. DIVANE AND APRIL HUGHES, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Northwestern University Retirement Plan and the
Northwestern University Voluntary Savings Plan v. NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE, PAMELA S. BREENER, RONALD R. BRAEUTIGAM, KATHLEEN
HAGERTY, CRAIG A. JOHNSON, CANDY LEE, WILLIAM H. McLEAN, and
INGRID S. STAFFORD, Case No. 1:16-cv-08157 (N.D. Ill., 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 Northwestern University Retirement Plan is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan
under the ERISA.  The Retirement Plan provides for retirement
income for certain employees of Northwestern University.  As of
December 31, 2015, the Retirement Plan had $2.34 billion in net
assets and 21,622 participants with account balances.

The Northwestern University Voluntary Savings Plan is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan
under the ERISA.  The Voluntary Savings Plan provides for
retirement income for certain employees of Northwestern
University.  As of December 31, 2015, the Voluntary Savings Plan
had $529.8 million in net assets and 12,293 participants with
account balances.

Northwestern University is a non-profit corporation organized
under Illinois law with its principal place of business in
Evanston, Illinois.  Northwestern is the fiduciary responsible for
the control, management and administration of the Plans.

The Northwestern University Retirement Investment Committee was
established only in 2012 and was delegated fiduciary
responsibility over the administration and investment of the Plan.
The Individual Defendants are current members of NURIC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com


NRG ENERGY: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted as to GenOn
-----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has granted
the motion for summary judgment as to the GenOn Energy, Inc.
entity in one of the Kansas cases.

GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting
FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase
natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar
laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of
energy companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the
District Court. GenOn along with the other defendants in the
lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and the
Supreme Court granted the petition.

On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's
holding that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field-
preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause
of the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Court left open whether the
claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption. The
Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to
class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24,
2016.

On May 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada heard argument on the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in one of the Kansas cases. On May 24, 2016, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment as to the GenOn entity in
one of the Kansas cases. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint
against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.


NRG ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of California Case
----------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that NRG filed a Rule 11
Motion seeking dismissal of NRG from a California class action
lawsuit.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, LLC -- one in California and two in
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by
the call agents and violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, claiming that the defendants engaged in a
telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited calls to individuals on
the "Do Not Call List."  The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of
up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief.
The Company is vigorously defending against these lawsuits. On
July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of NRG
from the California case.


NRG ENERGY: Must Respond to "Braun" Suit by Oct. 18
---------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Defendants need to
file a responsive pleading by October 18, 2016, in the case, Braun
v. NRG Yield, Inc.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc. and against each current and
former member of its board of directors individually in California
Superior Court in Kern County, CA.  Plaintiffs allege various
violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants' alleged
failure to disclose material facts related to low wind production
prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C common stock
offering.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission,
attorney's fees and costs.

On August 3, 2016, the court approved a stipulation entered into
by the parties. The stipulation provides that the plaintiffs will
file an amended complaint by August 19, 2016. The Defendants need
to file a responsive pleading by October 18, 2016.


OLD NATIONAL: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp 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 has entered a
final judgment and final order approving the settlement agreement
of a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In November 2010, Old National was named in a
class action lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our
checking account practices associated with the assessment of
overdraft fees. On April 5, 2016, Old National entered into a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs providing for a cash payment
from Old National in the amount of $4,750,000 in exchange for a
full release and dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. By entering
into the settlement agreement, Old National did not admit any
liability with respect to the lawsuit. The settlement amount was
accrued for in the December 31, 2015 financial statements."

"On April 14, 2016, the Circuit Court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement, entered an order authorizing notice of the
settlement to the class participants. On June 13, 2016, the
Circuit Court entered its Final Judgment and Final Order approving
the class action settlement and dismissed, in its entirety, the
class action lawsuit against Old National with prejudice. No other
material litigation is currently pending."


OLD REPUBLIC: Motions to Dismiss 2 Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International 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
class has not been certified in two suits and RMIC has filed
motions to dismiss the cases.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in
alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance
arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance
subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the
anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and
8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The
remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the
return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been
certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the
cases.


ONTARIO: Province Faces Class Action Over Prison Lockdowns
----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Aug. 15 announced the filing in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice of a class action against the Province
of Ontario on behalf of prisoners in Ontario's correctional
institutions.

The action alleges that endemic lockdowns arising from the
Province of Ontario's failure to properly staff its correctional
institutions facilities have caused and continue to cause
tremendous physical and psychological damage to inmates across the
Province.

A staffing-related "lockdown" of a correctional institution occurs
when prisoners are locked in their cells due to shortages of
prison staff.  Lockdowns can last for days or even weeks at a
time.  Staffing-related lockdowns have become a common feature of
Ontario's correctional institutions that deprive prisoners of
their most basic rights.

When the correctional institutions are locked down, prisoners
suffer from a deprivation of healthcare, privacy, dignity,
security, and hygiene.  They are deprived of access to fresh air,
showers, medical care, phone calls, visits from their families,
and legal counsel, often for many days at a time.

The action alleges that the Province of Ontario was negligent and
breached its fiduciary duty to prisoners in the correctional
institutions.  The action also alleges that the Province violated
the prisoners' rights under section 7 (life, liberty and security
of the person), section 9 (arbitrary detention and imprisonment)
and section 12 (cruel and unusual treatment) of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

"For too long, the Province of Ontario has neglected to protect
the basic rights of inmates in its correctional institutions,"
explains Kirk M. Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP.  "Inmates of
Ontario's correctional institutions are entirely at the mercy of
the Province for their care and control. Staffing-related
lockdowns are an inappropriate and unacceptable form of
incarceration."

"We have been contacted by a groundswell of prisoners from across
the Province who have reported common conditions under lockdowns
that systematically persist across Ontario," added Jonathan Ptak -
- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP.  "These chronic and
prolonged lockdowns are a tremendously inappropriate method of
operating the Ontario correctional institutions."

A recent decision of Justice Gray of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice styled Ogiamien v. Ontario awarded two inmates of
Maplehurst Correctional Complex a total of $85,000 arising from
breaches of section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
caused by staffing-related lockdowns at that facility.

Current and former prisoners of Ontario correctional institutions
are encouraged to visit https://kmlaw.ca/ontarioprison, email
ontarioprison@kmlaw.ca, or call 1 (866) 777-6339 to provide
information to support the case.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, pension, labor, employment and litigation firms. Its
class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992
and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.  For
example, Koskie Minsky LLP was counsel to the survivors of Huronia
Regional Centre and 14 other facilities for individuals with
developmental disabilities, who recently received court approval
of settlements with the Province of Ontario totalling $103.7
million.  Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Cloud v. Canada,
the first Indian residential schools class action certified in
Canada which resulted in a $4 billion pan-Canadian settlement.

Koskie Minsky LLP is working with Christopher Watkins of Watkins
Law Professional Corporation.  Christopher Watkins, based in
Thunder Bay, brings extensive courtroom and trial experience in
the areas of personal injury and criminal litigation.


PACIFIC GAS: Faces "Wilstead" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
The case is titled WILSTEAD, CLARISSA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and DOES 1-100,
INCLUSIVE, the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 553780 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 18, 2016).

Pacific Gas is an investor-owned electric utility with publicly
traded stock that is headquartered in the Pacific Gas and Electric
Building in San Francisco.


PATH INC: Certification of Five Classes Sought in "Opperman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled MARK OPPERMAN, et al. v.
PATH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.), filed
with the Court a redacted and an unredacted motion for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs move to certify these classes
against the App Defendants on the Plaintiffs' claim for invasion
of privacy/intrusion on seclusion and against Apple for aiding and
abetting the same:

     (1) The Foursquare App Class (by Plaintiffs Paul,
         Mandalaywala and King):

         All persons in the U.S. who received from Apple's
         App Store one or more of versions 1.1 through 4.2 of the
         iOS mobile application entitled Foursquare (the "Find
         Friends Versions"), and did one or more of the following
         between April 4, 2009 and February 8, 2012 (the
         "Foursquare Class Period"): (1) for versions 1.1 through
         4.2, activated via their Apple iDevice (iPhone, iPad,
         iPod Touch) the "Add Friends" feature; or (2) for
         versions 3.1 through 4.2, registered via their iDevice
         as a Foursquare user through those Find Friend Versions.

     (2) The Instagram App Class (by Plaintiffs Biondi and
         Mandalaywala):

         All persons in the U.S. who received from Apple's App
         Store a copy of versions 1.0.0 through 2.0.7 of the iOS
         mobile application entitled Instagram (the "Find Friends
         Versions") and activated via their Apple iDevice
         (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) the "Find Friends" feature of
         a Find Friends Version between Oct. 6, 2010 and Feb. 8,
         2012 (the "Instagram Class Period").

     (3) The Kik App Class (by Plaintiffs Cooley and Green):

         All persons in the U.S. who received from Apple's App
         Store one or more of versions 2.2.0 through 5.5.4 of the
         iOS mobile application entitled Kik Messenger (the "Find
         Friends Versions"), and did one or more of the following
         between October 19, 2010 and February 8, 2012 (the "Kik
         Class Period"): (1) for versions 2.2.0 and 2.2.1,
         launched via their Apple iDevice (iPhone, iPad, iPod
         Touch) one of those two Find Friends Versions; or (2)
         for the versions 2.2.2 through 5.5.4, activated via
         their Apple iDevice the "Find Friends" feature.

     (4) The Twitter App Class (by Plaintiffs Biondi, Hodgins,
         King, and Mandalaywala):

         All persons in the U.S. who received preinstalled on an
         Apple iDevice and/or from Apple's App Store a copy of
         versions 3.3 through 4.0.1 of the iOS mobile application
         entitled Twitter (the "Find Friends Versions") and
         activated via their Apple iDevice (iPhone, iPad, iPod
         Touch) the "Find Friends" feature of a Find Friends
         Version between March 3, 2011 and Feb. 8, 2012 (the
         "Twitter Class Period").

     (5) The Yelp App Class (by Plaintiffs Hodgins, Hoffman and
         Mandalaywala):

         All persons in the U.S. who received from Apple's App
         Store a copy of versions 4.0.0 through 5.6.0 of the iOS
         mobile application entitled Yelp (the "Find Friends
         Versions") and activated via their Apple iDevice
         (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) the "Find Friends" feature of
         a Find Friends Version between Jan. 16, 2010 and Feb. 8,
         2012 (the "Yelp Class Period").

The App Defendants are Foursquare Labs, Inc., Instagram, LLC, KIK
Interactive, Inc., Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order appointing them as Class
Representatives as proposed for each of those classes and
appointing their Counsel as Class Counsel for each class.  They
also ask that should the Court grant the Motion, that the Court
set a case management conference within 30 days of its Order to
resolve a plan for class notice and trial of the Action.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 15, 2016, at 9:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Unredacted Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0XZnm4Zv

A copy of the Redacted Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MGbN7Vv9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Given, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
          E-mail: dmg@phillaw.com
                  nac@phillaw.com

               - and -

          Michael von Loewenfeldt, Esq.
          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
          101 Mission Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 371-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 371-0500
          E-mail: mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  busch@kerrwagstaffe.com

               - and -

          Carl F. Schwenker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARL F. SCHWENKER
          The Haehnel Building
          1101 East 11th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 480-8427
          Facsimile: (512) 857-1294
          E-mail: cfslaw@swbell.net

               - and -

          Jeff Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS LAW
          The Haehnel Building
          1101 East 11th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 623-7727
          Facsimile: (512) 623-7729
          E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


PENN CREDIT: Bogacki Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Bogacki moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled GEORGE BOGACKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PENN CREDIT
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-01132-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rxn1A8kv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENN NATIONAL: Accused by Hutkai of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY E. HUTKAI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., and, THE
MISSOURI GAMING COMPANY,LLC d/b/a ARGOSY CASINO HOTEL & SPA, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00906-NKL (W.D. Mo., August 17, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay the Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, the mandated federal or state minimum wage
rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over
40 in a single workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

PNG is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business located in the state of Pennsylvania. PNG owns and
operates Argosy.  Argosy is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of Missouri.  Argosy is a casino
entertainment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly L. McClelland, Esq.
          Kenneth E. Cox, Esq.
          Jerome M. Patience, Esq.
          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: kmcclelland@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  kcox@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  jpatience@mccclellandlawfirm.com
                  ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


PEPSI CO: Juice Has Preservatives, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------
Pepsico's carbonated juice line Izze contains citric acid even
though the product is marketed as having "no preservatives,"
consumers claim in a federal class action in Manhattan.


PRESS TWO: Jimenez Wants Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO JIMENEZ-RODRIGUEZ, EDDIE ROJAS-RAMIREZ, ALEXIS YAMEOGO,
JAVIER ERNESTO PAZOS-FLORES and HUGO PAZOS, on behalf of
themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. PRESS TWO, INC.,
BENVENUTO 23 CORP., ILAN PORTAL and PERRY MALLAS, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06514 (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiffs
and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from
Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime, (3)
unlawfully retained tips, (4) liquidated damages, and (5)
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Predecessor Defendants, PRESS TWO, INC. and ILAN PORTAL, operated
a restaurant by the trade name "Press Two" located in New York
City until about December 2015.  In December 2015, the Successor
Defendants, BENVENUTO 23 CORP. and PERRY MALLAS, acquired the
business from the Predecessor Defendants.  In May 2016, the
Successor Defendants changed the trade name of the restaurant to
"Benvenuto Cafe."  However, the Successor Defendants maintained
the same employees, the same look and feel, similar menu items and
the same wage and hour policies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: AU Greens Backs Indonesian Fishermen Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Djemi Amnifu, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that the
Australian Greens have conveyed their full support to the class
action lawsuit filed by fishermen from East Nusa Tenggara over
damages they suffered from the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea
in 2009.

"The class action lawsuit filed by seaweed farmers from Indonesia
is a great thing to see," said Australian Greens politician Rachel
Siewert in an email, as quoted by Care for West Timor Foundation
(YPTB) chairman Ferdi Tanoni on Aug. 14.

In the letter, Ferdi said, the Australian green political party
senator also expressed her commitment to see justice for those who
had been impacted by damages from the oil spill at the Montara oil
rig.  She said the impacts from the disaster would affect coastal
communities throughout their lifetime, he went on.

Ms. Siewert, who was elected in the Australian election in July,
further recalled that, accompanied by Ferdi and Kupang Regent Ayub
Titu Eki, she visited and held a dialogue with seaweed farmers in
Tablolong, West Kupang district, Kupang regency, East Nusa
Tenggara in February 2014.

"When I visited seaweed farmers and fishermen in West Timor,
Indonesia, I directly heard their complaints and worries about
impacts of the Montara oil spill to the social and economic life
of the seaweed farmers, fishermen and the local economy," said Ms.
Siewert as quoted by Ferdi.

The senator further stated the oil spill took place for more than
10 weeks and, based on the company's estimation it released more
than 4.5 million liters of oil to the Timor Sea.

"It's clear the Montara oil spill ended in Indonesian waters and
since then, Indonesian fishermen and seaweed farmers complained
about its impacts to their livelihood, bringing significant
economic losses," she said.


RED GRANITE: Faces Class Action Over Stolen 1MDB Assets
-------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia Kini reports that lawyer Matthias Chang is urging the
public to write to their parliamentarians to pledge support for
the class action he and former PAS vice-president Husam Musa filed
in the United States.

The class action is to seek custodianship of the US$1 billion
worth of assets the US Department of Justice claimed had been
stolen from 1MDB, pending a change of government in Malaysia,
Chang said.

"We are merely lending our names as trustees . . . that is, if the
court finds that there are assets diverted, purchased from illegal
proceeds from 1MDB, then those assets and proceeds can be returned
to our country when a new government is in place.

"Pending the situation, we hope and we pray the court will
recognize our stature to receive those assets in the name of the
country, but under the guardianship of the courts," he said in a
video statement.

As such, he urged Malaysians who support the class action to write
either to him or to their elected representatives to lend their
names to the cause.

"But not BN because they will destroy your representation.  Write
to those in PKR, DAP, Amanah and even those in PAS who are honest
and god-fearing," he said.

Alternatively, they can send him an e-mail pledging support that
Chang and Husam be the custodians, along with their names,
addresses and identity card numbers, he said.

"Then we can truly say that this action we filed in the US is an
action of the entire nation.

"Because Umno has failed us.  BN has failed us by non-action and
refusing to do anything, to even lift a little finger, to recover
the proceeds (taken from 1MDB) and bring to book those criminals,"
he said.

'Don't you dare arrest us'

Chang, who was aide to former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad,
said the class action is also his duty as a citizen and lawyer
committed to the truth.

This is unlike Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who, despite
committing to fulfil his duties to the country, is not trying to
bring the siphoned funds home.

"Husam and I believe . . . we are raising our voices for honesty,
justice and the truth.

"Don't you dare try to sop us and find any excuse or law or
arrest, charge and incarcerate us," he said.

Chang and former Umno grassroots leader Khairuddin Abu Hassan were
jailed under the Security Offences (Safety Measures) Act (Sosma)
for allegedly trying to destabilize the economy.

Chang had acted as Khairuddin's counsel and accompanied him to
lodge reports with foreign enforcement agencies over 1MDB.

Besides the US, other countries including Singapore, Switzerland
and Hong Kong are investigating the 1MDB money trail.

The duo were released after the court found that it was not a
Sosma offence.  They claimed trial to the charge of sabotaging the
economy under the Penal Code, and were released on bail.

The DOJ in July filed two lawsuits to seize more than US$1 billion
of assets believed purchased using stolen 1MDB funds.  It said the
intention was to return the assets to the people of Malaysia.

Among those named were businessman Jho Low and Najib's stepson
Riza Aziz.  Najib said those named in the lawsuits should clear
their names.

Currying favor with DiCaprio

The class action was brought on behalf of the Malaysian citizenry
and was filed on Aug. 11 with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to The Hollywood
Reporter.

Chang and Husam named Red Granite Pictures, the film production
and distribution company's co-founders Christopher Joey McFarland
and Riza.

According to the court filing, Chang and Husam claimed the
defendants knowingly used funds stolen from 1MDB for their
personal benefit, including throwing parties for Hollywood star
Leonardo DiCaprio to curry favor with him.

Also named as defendants were Malaysian billionaire Low and his
tax attorney Debra Whelan Johnson, as well as her firm Metropolis
IX Capital Advisors LLC.

Goldman Sachs Group and its former banker Timothy Leissner were
also named.


RELYPSA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 15 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Relypsa, Inc. ("Relypsa" or the
"Company") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of current stock holders of
Relypsa, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that Relypsa's Board of Directors (the
"Board") forced through a sale of the Company in order to reap
personal benefits they negotiated with Galenica AG, and Vifor
Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, the "Buyer") to the detriment of
Relypsa's public stockholders.  According to the Complaint, the
Board pushed through a merger pursuant to which the Buyer plans to
acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of Relypsa common stock
through an all-cash tender offer (the "Tender Offer") followed by
a second-step merger (the "Proposed Transaction").  Further, the
Buyer has offered Relypsa investors $32.00 per share in cash, or a
total of approximately $1.53 billion (the "Offer Price" or "Merger
Consideration").  The Complaint also alleges that the Proposed
Transaction undervalues Relypsa's prospects and is the result of
an unfair, truncated and conflicted sale process.  Indeed, even
after the transaction was announced both Wedbush and Guggenheim
put price targets on the Company of $51.00 and $49.00 per share
respectively, well above the inadequate $32.00 Offer Price.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


ROFIN-SINAR: Michigan State Court Dismissed Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court denied
Plaintiff's motion for an order scheduling a preliminary
injunction hearing and dismissed the lawsuit.

On March 16, 2016, the Company entered into a Merger Agreement
with Coherent, Inc. ("Coherent") and Rembrandt Merger Sub Corp., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Coherent ("Merger Sub"), providing for,
subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, the
acquisition of the Company by Coherent at a price of $32.50 per
share, without interest (the "Merger Consideration"), through the
Merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Coherent.

On April 8, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of Wayne County, Michigan against the Company, our
directors, Coherent and Merger Sub. On behalf of all public
stockholders, Plaintiff alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by the
directors and aiding and abetting of such breaches by the Company
and Coherent. Plaintiff's claims arose out of the approval by the
directors of the Merger Agreement, together with allegations that
the consideration to be paid to the stockholders in the proposed
transaction was inadequate.

On June 4, 2016, Plaintiff moved for an order scheduling a
preliminary injunction hearing and authorizing Plaintiff to
conduct expedited discovery.

On June 13, 2016, the court denied Plaintiff's motion and
dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Delaware Court of Chancery
was the sole and exclusive forum to adjudicate the claims.

Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. is a leader in the design,
development, engineering, manufacturing and marketing of laser
sources and laser-based system solutions for industrial material
processing applications, which include primarily cutting, welding
and marking a wide range of materials.


SEQUENOM INC: Gupta Challenges Proposed Acquisition by LabCorp
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIKHA GUPTA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. SEQUENOM, INC., KENNETH F. BUECHLER, PH.D., MYLA LAI-
GOLDMAN, M.D., RICHARD A. LERNER, M.D., RONALD M. LINDSAY PH.D.,
DAVID PENDARVIS, CATHERINE J. MACKEY, PH.D., CHARLES P. SLACIK,
and DIRK VAN DEN BOOM, PH.D., Case No. 3:16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC (S.D.
Cal., August 17, 2016), alleges that the Defendants have violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by causing a materially
incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The 14d9 recommends that Sequenom stockholders tender their shares
pursuant to the terms of a tender offer, whereby Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings seeks to acquire all the
outstanding shares of common stock of Sequenom for $2.40 per
share.

On July 26, 2016, Sequenom, LabCorp and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Savoy Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger.  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, LabCorp, through Merger Sub, commenced the Tender Offer
on August 9, 2016.  Following the completion of the Tender
Offer, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Sequenom, with
Sequenom surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of LabCorp.

Sequenom is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego,
California.  Sequenom is a life sciences company that develops and
commercializes molecular diagnostics testing services for the
women's health and oncology.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

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


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 Company
continues to defend against the appeal in a class action lawsuit
related to Oregon State Lottery.

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of
persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the
"auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery
terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and
various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc.  The suit alleges
that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by
players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will
maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold
feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary
damages.

In April 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion
to dismiss, stating the plaintiffs had not satisfied the Oregon
Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated
that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. were moot.

In June 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the
lawsuit," the Company said.


SCOTTRADE INC: Kuhns Appeals From E.D. Mo. Ruling to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kuhns filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01537-
SPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Kuhns
seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages,
statutory damages for the Defendant's alleged breach of express
contract, breach of implied contract, violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, bailment, and unjust
enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade,
Inc., Case No. 16-3426, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on October 3, 2016;

   -- Brief of Appellant Matthew Kuhns is due on October 3, 2016;

   -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      the Appellant;

   -- Appellant's reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      Appellee brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Matthew Kuhns, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT, P.C.
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 296-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

Defendant-Appellee Scottrade, Inc., is represented by:

          Brandi L. Burke, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Douglass, Esq.
          David M. Mangian, Esq.
          THOMPSON & COBURN
          One US Bank Plaza
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: bburke@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com
                  dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Moved to Oct. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC)(S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello on
Aug. 26 entered a minute order vacating and resetting the hearing
date on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim.

A hearing on the motion was set for Sept. 26.  In order to
accommodate Defendants' request for oral argument, the Court
resets the hearing for October 3, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom
3A.

Seaworld Entertainment, 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'
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit was due on August 10, 2016.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.
On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone,
and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary
public offerings.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed
contained materially false and misleading information in violation
of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew
or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting
SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015.  The Company
and the other defendants filed a reply in further support of their
motion to dismiss on September 18, 2015.

On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice.  On May 31,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint, which, among other things, no longer names the
Company's Board or underwriters as defendants.

On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on July 27, 2016 and defendants' reply in
further support of their motion to dismiss was due on August 10,
2016. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of this lawsuit.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sept-Nov Briefing Set in 9th Cir. Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, 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 Ninth Circuit's
briefing in a class action appeal is scheduled to occur from
September-November 2016.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.  Plaintiffs' claims
are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the
physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas,
resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket
purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with
intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class
members.  The complaint further alleges that the specific
misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,
but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the
class is determined (if certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against
the Company and its affiliates.  The first three actions were
filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015,
respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK
(the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al.
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the
"Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v.
SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne
Matter").

On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.  On May
7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along
with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in an action
captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of these
cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in
the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were
consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a
First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015.
The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original
Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant
to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its
motion was granted on December 24, 2015.  The Court granted
dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the
portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the
CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all
California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the
Company.  The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of
the complaint.

On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC pursues the same causes of
action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted
above, was dismissed with prejudice.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25,
2016.  The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on
May 13, 2016.  Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth
Circuit") on June 10, 2016.  The Ninth Circuit briefing is
scheduled to occur from September-November 2016.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Amended Complaint in "Anderson" Due
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, 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 district court
has issued an order granting in part the Company's motion to
dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by August 22, 2016.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson
Matter").  The putative class consists of all consumers within
California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego.

On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint").  The First Amended
Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False
Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California
CLRA.  Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the
Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding
among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its
orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and
purported class members.  The First Amended Complaint seeks actual
damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  Based on
plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until
the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted
at all).

On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
15:cv-2172-SC.

On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  On
September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The motion is fully
briefed.  On September 24, 2015, the district court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.  On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed.  On
October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for leave.  Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully
briefed.

On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied
in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the
case.  On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth
Circuit, which the Company opposed.  On April 7, 2016, the Ninth
Circuit denied both of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to
appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended
Complaint"), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make
various pleading adjustments.  The Company opposed the motion.

On August 1, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in
part the Company's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016.


SHAMIR SALADS: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamodia, citing Globes, reports that the salmonella scandal
entered its legal phase on Aug. 14 as a class action suit was
begun against Israeli companies that were allegedly negligent in
keeping contaminated supplies off the market.

Shamir Salads, Prince Tehina, Shufersal and Yohananoff supermarket
chains were named in a request for approval in Lod District Court
for a class action suit totaling 6.7 billion shekels.

The suit was filed on behalf of Israeli consumers "who feel
anxious about their own health and the health of their children,
anger, uncertainty, and disgust at eating the products of the
respondents, suspected of salmonella bacteria contamination."

The lawsuit accuses the producers of negligence in not conducting
lab tests on their products, and that Prince had also concealed
information from the public.

The issue of reliance of Shamir Salads, Shufersal and Yohananoff
on tests carried out by Prince, without conducting their own
independent tests.

"It is probable that if the respondents would have detected the
presence of salmonella bacteria in their products in advance, they
could have prevented them from being marketed to retail chains.
The suit will claim that the respondents had operated with extreme
negligence . . . and fundamentally violated the agreement between
them and the products' consumers, making profit in an unjust
manner."


SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS: Runs Debtors' Prison, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action filed on August 23, accuses an
Arkansas city and district court judge of running a debtors'
prison that traps poor residents into a never-ending spiral of
incarceration and debt.

The lawsuit was filed on August 23, on behalf of four Sherwood,
Arkansas residents who claim their constitutional rights were
violated by the Hot Check Division of the Sherwood District Court,
where a $15 returned check can mushroom "into many thousands of
dollars in court costs, fines and fees."

Nikki Rachelle Petree, 40, one of the lead plaintiffs, says she
wrote a single check for $28.93 in 2011 that was returned for
insufficient funds.

Since then she has been arrested at least seven times, jailed for
over 25 days, and paid approximately $640, but is still currently
jailed because she can't come up with the nearly $2,700 in court
costs, fines and fees.

The class sued Sherwood, Pulaski County, and Judge Milas Hale III,
who presides over the Sherwood District Court, in Arkansas Federal
Court.

"The defendants are being jailed due to their poverty," said
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

"In our view the Sherwood County District Court of Arkansas
epitomizes the criminalization of poverty and the corrupting
effect of financial incentives on our local courts," she said.

According to the lawsuit, Sherwood, pop. 29,500, Pulaski County
and their officials engaged in a policy of jailing poor
individuals who owe court fines, fees and costs stemming from
misdemeanor "hot check" convictions with no regard for their
ability to pay.

"These costs are often borne by the poorest and most disadvantaged
citizens in the community, including plaintiffs and others like
them, who find themselves caught in a never-ending cycle of court
proceedings they do not understand, arrests they cannot avoid,
payments they cannot afford, and, all too often, weeks or months
behind bars because they cannot pay for their freedom," the
lawsuit says.

It also says defendants were required to waive their right to
counsel before entering the courtroom, and that court proceedings
were closed to the public.

Sherwood is the latest city to face a federal class action
accusing it of reinstituting so-called modern-day debtors'
prisons.

Earlier this month, 13 St. Louis County cities were sued for
jailing people who are too poor to pay fines for traffic tickets
and petty misdemeanors.

Other lawsuits have been filed against Georgia; New Orleans; San
Francisco; Benton County, Wash.; Alexander City, Ala.; and Douglas
County, (Omaha) Neb.

All the class actions stem from the protests after the death of
Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, who was shot by a white
Ferguson police officer on Aug. 9, 2014. His death sparked
national concern about policing in black communities and cities
using the court system as a revenue generator on the backs of poor
black people.

"In our view the resurgence of debtor's prisons across the country
has entrapped poor people, too many of whom are African American
or minority, in a cycle of escalating debt and unnecessary
incarceration," Clarke said. "The goal of our case is to put a
stop to the brazen unconstitutional practices of the Sherwood
District Court and its judge so that clients, poor people in
Arkansas, are not unconstitutionally incarcerated despite their
inability to pay."

ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Rita Sklar said that what's
happening in Sherwood "is a nationwide problem."

"Across the country, the cost of debtors' prisons in human lives
and public resources is enormous," she said.

"It really is a rising problem."

The complaint was filed by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under the Law, Morrison & Foerster, and the Arkansas Civil
Liberties Union Foundation.

The case is captioned, CHARLES DADE, NAKITA LEWIS, NIKKI PETREE,
LEE ANDREW ROBERTSON, and PHILIP AXELROTH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND HONORABLE MILAS
H. HALE, III, in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants (E.D. Ark.).


SPRINT CORP: Awaits Approval of "Bennett" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting
court approval of an agreement to settle a stockholder suit.

In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill.

The district court granted final approval of a settlement in
August 2015, which did not have a material impact to our financial
statements. Five stockholder derivative suits related to this 2009
stockholder suit were filed against Sprint Communications and
certain of its present and/or former officers and directors.

The first, Murphy v. Forsee, was filed in state court in Kansas on
April 8, 2009, was removed to federal court, and was stayed by the
court pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Bennett
case; the second, Randolph v. Forsee, was filed on July 15, 2010
in state court in Kansas, was removed to federal court, and was
remanded back to state court; the third, Ross-Williams v. Bennett,
et al., was filed in state court in Kansas on February 1, 2011;
the fourth, Price v. Forsee, et al., was filed in state court in
Kansas on April 15, 2011; and the fifth, Hartleib v. Forsee, et.
al., was filed in federal court in Kansas on July 14, 2011.

The Company said, "These cases were essentially stayed while the
Bennett case was pending, and we have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matters, by agreeing to some governance
provisions and by paying plaintiffs' attorneys fees in an
immaterial amount."

"We are awaiting court approval."

Sprint Corp is one of the largest wireless communications
companies in the U.S., as well as a provider of wireline services.


SOLARCITY CORP: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Wagner Firm on Aug. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of persons and entities that acquired SolarCity
Corporation ("SolarCity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SCTY)
securities between May 5, 2015, and February 9, 2016.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the August 15, 2016, date of this
notice to serve as lead plaintiff.

On October 29, 2015, SolarCity announced that it was lowering its
full year 2015 guidance.  On this news the Company's stock price
fell $8.42 per share, or 22%, to close at $29.65 on October 30,
2015.  Then, on February 9, 2016 the Company disclosed that it
fell short of its previously issued fiscal year 2015 installation
guidance.  On this news, the Company's stock price fell $7.72 per
share, or 29%, to close at $18.63 on February 10, 2016, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint charges SolarCity and certain of its officers with
violations of the federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that demand for the
Company's products was weakening; (2) that the Company was
concealing the weakening demand from investors; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about SolarCity's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at (310) 491-7949, by e-mail to info@thewagnerfirm.com, or visit
the website at www.thewagnerfirm.com


SPRINT CORP: Trial in Clearwire Stockholders Case in October 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that trial is scheduled
to begin in October 2016 in a complaint by stockholders of
Clearwire Corporation.

Sprint Communications, Inc. is a defendant in a complaint filed by
stockholders of Clearwire asserting claims for breach of fiduciary
duty by Sprint Communications, and related claims and otherwise
challenging the Clearwire Acquisition. ACP Master, LTD, et al. v.
Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., was filed April 26, 2013, in Chancery
Court in Delaware.

The Company said, "Our motion to dismiss the suit was denied, and
discovery is substantially complete. All parties' motions for
summary judgment were denied. Plaintiffs in the ACP Master, LTD
suit have also filed suit requesting an appraisal of the fair
value of their Clearwire stock. Discovery in that case was
consolidated with the breach of fiduciary duty case and is
substantially complete. Trial is scheduled to begin in October
2016. Sprint Communications intends to defend the ACP Master, LTD
cases vigorously. We do not expect the resolution of these matters
to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or
results of operations."

Sprint Corp is one of the largest wireless communications
companies in the U.S., as well as a provider of wireline services.


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Sued Over Proposed Merger with People's United
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Civiletti, writing for Riverhead Local, reports that a
Suffolk Bancorp shareholder has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to
block the company's merger with People's United Financial Inc.
In a complaint filed Aug. 4 in Federal District Court in Brooklyn,
shareholder Paul Parshall claims that Suffolk Bancorp president
and CEO Howard Bluver and Suffolk Bancorp's board of directors may
have put their own interests ahead of shareholders in striking the
deal with People's United, announced June 27.

The directors and executive officers of Suffolk have "certain
interests in the merger that may be different from, or in addition
to, the interests of Suffolk's shareholders generally . . . which
may create conflicts of interest," according to the complaint.

The complaint says Mr. Bluver "steered the deal" toward
Connecticut-based People's United "to secure employment with the
combined company."  Mr. Bluver, Suffolk's president and CEO since
January 2012, will become People's New York market president after
the merger.

Mr. Bluver and Suffolk Bancorp directors will enjoy "a substantial
financial boon" as a result of the merger that would not exist had
the company continued as an independent entity, according to the
complaint.  As a result of the transaction, company stock options
and restricted shares will become fully redeemable and key
officers will receive large cash and equity payments.  According
to the complaint, Mr. Bluver, for example, will be paid nearly
$3.26 million, Suffolk director and chief financial officer Brian
Finneran more than $1.9 million, and chief lending officer Michael
Orsino $1.2 million, as a result of the transaction.

Suffolk's board of directors hired financial adviser Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods Inc. in March to explore "strategic alternatives"
for the company, the complaint says.

But the board of directors did not adequately investigate
proposals submitted by other prospective suitors -- in some
instances even refusing to entertain proposals or enter into
discussions, according to the complaint.

"The process leading up to the Proposed Transaction was
spearheaded by Individual Defendant Bluver, a conflicted and self-
interested director and the CEO of Suffolk who steered the deal
towards its favored bidder, People's United, to secure employment
with the combined company," the complaint states.

"During this process, Bluver and the Individual Defendants refused
to entertain inquiries from four different companies that reached
out expressing an acquisition interest, telling those companies
that a deal was not likely to occur and any strategic discussions
would be unproductive."

The all-stock transaction, valued by the companies at $402
million, was approved by the boards of directors of both Suffolk
Bancorp and People's United and now awaits approval by federal
regulators and 70 percent of Suffolk Bancorp shareholders.
The complaint also alleges that the bank filed SEC statements
regarding the proposed transaction that were incomplete and
factually inaccurate.

The lawsuit, first reported by Newsday on Aug. 9, seeks an
injunction to prevent Suffolk Bancorp and People's United from
consummating the transaction.  It also seeks class-action status.
Suffolk Bancorp CFO Brian Finneran said on Aug. 12 the bank does
not expect the lawsuit to delay the transaction.  Actions like
this have become commonplace when banks announce mergers, he said.
He said he could not comment on the substance of the claims made
by Parshall.

The Riverhead-based Suffolk Bancorp was organized in 1890.  It is
the parent company of Suffolk County National Bank, which operates
27 branches on Long Island.

The company suffered turbulent times following the 2008 financial
crisis, including: being determined by federal regulators in 2010
to be in "troubled condition" and forced to enter into a written
oversight agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the
currency; being threatened with delisting by NASDAQ in 2011 for
failing to meet SEC filing deadlines as it re-examined its
financial records; and seeing its stock plummet more than 67
percent in value.

Suffolk Bancorp hired Mr. Bluver as president and CEO in December
2011 and the bank has been restored to stability under his four-
and-a-half-year tenure.

In 2011 and 2012, besides hiring Mr. Bluver, the bank named a new
chief lending officer, a new chief financial officer, a new chief
information officer, and new heads of its loan administration and
residential lending departments.  It also hired a new accounting
firm.

Suffolk had to issue restated results of operations for the third
quarter of 2010 and for the year ending Dec. 31, 2010, reporting a
drop in net income of more than 72 percent compared to its net
income for 2009.  It posted a net loss of $7.57 million in the
first quarter of 2011.  Though it returned to profitability during
subsequent quarters of 2011, it still posted a net loss of $76,000
for the year, down more than 100 percent compared to its restated
results for 2010.

Suffolk Bancorp's condition turned around in 2012 and in May 2013,
the OCC released the company from formal oversight.  The bank has
since increased profitability and resumed payment of quarterly
dividends to shareholders.  Its stock value has climbed from a
2011 low of $7.67 to a current $33.56 -- a restoration of its
value prior to its 2010-2011 troubles.


TALENTBIN INC: Still Defends Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend a class action lawsuit against a subsidiary.

On or about October 12, 2015, TalentBin, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, was served with notice of a purported consumer class
action for allegedly assembling, scoring and sharing candidate
profiles in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
("ICRAA"). The lawsuit, entitled Eric Halvorson, et. al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15 548270), was brought in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. On or about November 2015, the action was removed to
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
(Case No. 3:15-cv-05166). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, statutory
penalties of between $100 and $1,000 per violation, punitive
damages and other costs and attorney's fees.

On February 23, 2016, the ICRAA claims were dismissed voluntarily.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter and is
currently unable to estimate any potential losses.


TALK FUSION: "Gray" Suit Transferred from S.D. Cal. to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Talk Fusion, Inc., a Florida
Corporation; Talk Fusion International, Inc., a Florida
Corporation; Mane World Productions, Inc., an Oregon Corporation;
Robert Reina, a resident of Florida, Talk Fusion Worldwide, Inc.,
a Florida Corporation; and Mane World Promotions, Inc., an Oregon
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02665, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court For the Southern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).
The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02360-
MSS-JSS to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Mary S.
Scriven.

Talk Fusion provides video marketing solutions. It helps grow
businesses and change lives through proprietary, patent-pending
video technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geoffrey Joseph Spreter
          SPRETER LEGAL SERVICES, APC
          601 3rd Street
          Coronado, CA 92118
          Telephone: (619) 865 7986
          E-mail: spreterlegalservices@gmail.com
                  mbarlow@sbwlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Kuchinski, Esq.
          Mahlon Herbert Barlow, III, Esq.
          SIVYER BARLOW & WATSON PA
          401 E Jackson St Ste 2225
          Tampa, FL 33602-5213
          Telephone: (813) 221 4242
          Facsimile: (813) 227 8598
          E-mail: ekuchinski@sbwlegal.com

               - and -

          Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq.
          BUCHALTER NEMER
          1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 891 0700
          Facsimile: (213) 896 0400
          E-mail: LSteinberg@buchalter.com

               - and -

          Frederick L Wilks, Esq.
          Hodel Wilks LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 640, Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 450 4470
          Facsimile: (949) 450 4479
          E-mail: fwilks@hodelwilks.com


TANDI PRODUCTIONS: Tel Aviv Sia Concert-Goers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jerusalem Post reports that Australian pop sensation Siaa's
highly anticipated performance in Tel Aviv apparently led many
concert-goers to feel that the "Cheap Thrills" singer had left
them with just that.

On Aug. 15, a number of disappointed crowd members filed a class-
action suit against the "Elastic Heart" artist, seeking to
compensate all ticket holders for the Aug. 11 concert.

Concert-goers who paid NIS 344 for lawn seats in Tel Aviv's Yarkon
Park were dismayed when the entire concert ended after just 65
minutes, an unusually short length for a major production.  But
that wasn't the only thing that upset fans, many of whom spent
hours getting to the venue, waiting for the show to start, and
battling traffic on the way home afterward.

During the show, the megatron screens usually devoted to
portraying the on-stage performance aired a polished, prerecorded
video instead.

The footage featured famous actresses such as Kristen Wiig, of
Bridesmaids fame, and Gaby Hoffman, from the hit Amazon series
Transparent, as dancers, even though they were absent from the
actual stage.

Although the video was meant to complement what was happening on
stage, the sync was imperfect, even as the colors and lighting
were vastly superior to the stage show.

As a result, the vast majority of concert-goers (with the possible
exception of people who shelled out for expensive front-row
"golden ring" tickets) experienced in essence a movie screening on
the lawn of the Yarkon, complete with live backing vocals from a
bewigged Sia and a distant stage show they couldn't see.  Even the
live vocals felt impersonal, as the artist never once addressed
the crowd, mentioned what it was like to be in Tel Aviv, or
bantered in any way.

Those downtrodden crowd members also complained that the
"Chandelier" artist put on a lackluster show, standing toward the
back of the stage throughout the performance while wearing the
signature wig that predominantly covered her face.

The suit against Sia and Tandi Productions -- the firm that
brought her to Israel -- reportedly calls for a nearly NIS 8
million sum to be paid as nominal reparations to all of the
concert's ticket holders.


TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Aloe Vera Gel
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Target's Up & Up Aloe Vera
gel contains no aloe vera at all, a class action claims in
Sacramento Federal Court.


TILE SHOP: Beaver County Employees' Case in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop 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 case, Beaver County
Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et
al., is now in the discovery phase.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its
outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the
directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought
under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the
caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al.  Several related actions were filed in
2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors
who represent a class or classes consisting of (1) all purchasers
of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and January 28,
2014 (the "alleged class period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all purchasers
of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's December 2012 registration statements, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Six firms who were
underwriters in the December 2012 secondary public offering are
also named as defendants.

In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint"), the
plaintiffs allege that during the alleged class period, certain
defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact in
press releases and SEC filings about the Company's relationships
with its vendors, its gross margins, and its supply chain and
producer relationships, and that defendants failed to disclose
certain related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs
seek to recover damages on behalf of the members of the purported
classes.  The defendants are vigorously defending the matter. The
parties are now providing expert reports and conducting expert
discovery.


TRIUS THERAPEUTICS: Oct. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Trius Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MICHAEL BEMIS, et al., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TRIUS THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Lead Case No. 37-2013-00060593-CU-BT-CTL
(Consolidated with Case Nos. 37-2013-00061332-
CU-SL-CTL, 37-2013-00061612-CU-SL-CTL, 37-
2013-00061751-CU-BT-CTL, 37-2013-00062038-
CU-BT-CTL, 37-2013-00062069-CU-SL-CTL and
37-2013-00062130-CU-SL-CTL)

CLASS ACTION
JUDGE:  Honorable Judith F. Hayes
DEPT:  C-68
DATE ACTION FILED: 08/01/13

SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN TRIUS THERAPEUTICS, INC.
("TRIUS") AND RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR SHARES IN THE
ACQUISITION OF TRIUS BY CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("CUBIST
PHARMACEUTICALS") AND BRGO CORPORATION, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OF CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS ("BRGO" AND TOGETHER WITH CUBIST
PHARMACEUTICALS, "CUBIST") AT THE PRICE OF $13.50 PER SHARE IN
CASH AND ONE CONTINGENT VALUE RIGHT PER SHARE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, that a
hearing will be held on October 28, 2016, at 10:30 a.m., in
Department C-68, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims in the Action for the sum of $9,400,000.00 in cash plus
accrued interest should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Court should enter a
final judgment in the Action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement, dated November 30, 2015 ("Stipulation")1; (3) whether
the plan of distribution is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application of
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this Action and service awards to Plaintiffs
should be approved.

If you held Trius common stock and received consideration for your
shares in the acquisition of Trius by Cubist at the price of
$13.50 per share in cash and one Contingent Value Right per share,
your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Action.  If
you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing
and Right to Appear ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim,
you may obtain copies by writing to Trius Securities Litigation,
Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 40007,
College Station, TX 77842-4007, or you can download a copy at
www.triussecuritieslitigation.com.  If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount,
you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked (if mailed) or
received (if filed electronically) no later than November 7, 2016,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  You will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
OCTOBER 14, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE
REFERRED TO ABOVE.  ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED
EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED
IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT
TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES.  ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE
FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL BY OCTOBER 14, 2016,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED:  July 18, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation.


TRUMP NATIONAL: Trial Begins in Jupiter Club Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Musgrave, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that a trial,
accusing GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump of refusing to
return roughly $6 million in refundable deposits to members of a
Jupiter golf club, was to begin on Aug. 15 in federal court.

In a breach of contract dispute that has raged since 2012 when Mr.
Trump bought Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa and renamed it Trump
National Golf Club in Jupiter, members claim he pocketed their
deposits and locked them out.  Under the previous ownership,
members could continue to use the club after they announced their
intentions to resign and would get their deposits back once new
members joined.

Mr. Trump isn't expected to testify.  But key evidence is a letter
he wrote after plunking down $5 million for the club on Donald
Ross Road and Alternate A1A that was losing as much as $4.2
million annually.  Once members resigned, Mr. Trump wrote "you're
out."  Members claim they were then refused admission.

Trump attorneys claim it was because they hadn't paid their dues.
Further, they claim, deposits were refunded when new members
joined.  Members just had to wait.

Originally to be decided by a jury, the class-action lawsuit will
instead be decided by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra.


TUCSON, AZ: Photos Show Immigrants' Living Conditions in Prison
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Medrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that newly released photos and documents validate longtime
assertions that Border Patrol agents in Tucson subject immigrants
to lengthy detention in dirty cells crammed with people, and
medical neglect one expert called "unthinkable."

The still images from video surveillance cameras in the Tucson
Sector of the Border Patrol -- made public as part of a class-
action lawsuit -- offer a rare glimpse into detention areas so
cold that immigrants call them hieleras, or iceboxes.

"We know that these holding cells are horrible, that they don't
meet the minimum standards in terms of how overcrowded they are,"
Guillermo Cantor, deputy director of research at the American
Immigration Council in Washington, D.C., said August 18. "There's
not enough room for people to sleep there and there aren't even
beds because they are not meant to be used for overnight custody."

The council is part of a coalition of legal and civil rights
groups that sued the Department of Homeland Security in June 2015,
on behalf of detainees challenging inhumane conditions in
detention centers. Homeland Security, which oversees Customs and
Border Protection, fought to keep the images sealed, claiming they
would jeopardize security and invade the privacy of detainees.

The federal agencies say they do not comment on pending
litigation.

The still images show immigrants, whose faces are blurred to
prevent identification, sitting on benches and lying on the
concrete floor. A woman is changing a child's diaper on the floor,
which is strewn with trash and aluminum sheets detainees use to
keep warm.

Other previously sealed court documents include testimony from
Eldon Vail, a former corrections administrator with more than 30
years' experience. One of several experts who inspected Border
Patrol stations as part of the litigation, Vail said he found
conditions to be "harsh" and in violation of standard industry
practices.

"The absence of medical screening upon arrival is unthinkable," he
said. "Sufficient food, water and clothing are fundamental to
safe, secure and humane operation."

Robert Powitz, an expert on prison sanitation, backed up Vail's
contentions in a separate declaration in the lawsuit, Doe v Jeh
Johnson, as did Dr. Joe Goldenson, past president of the
California chapter of the American Correctional Health Services
Association.

Vail noted that the cells are intended for short-term detentions:
a maximum of 10 hours.

But Border Patrol data show that in the Tucson Sector alone, from
June 10 to Sept. 28, 2015, about 14,000 of 17,000 immigrants were
detained for more than 12 hours. Another 2,800 were detained for
more than 36 hours, and about 1,000 for more than 48 hours.

The Border Patrol numbers are in line with findings from the
American Immigration Council, which has tracked such data for
years.

In its latest report, the Immigration Council found that the 262-
mile Tucson sector of the Border Patrol, which covers most of
Arizona, is not the only one holding immigrants longer than 12
hours.

"The government's own policy is 12 hours, and they just haven't
been abiding by it," said Colette Reiner Mayer, with Morrison &
Foerster, the Bay Area law firm representing the plaintiffs.

The Immigration Council obtained data from all nine Border Patrol
sectors in Arizona, California and Texas through the Freedom of
Information Act. Data reviewed covers Sept. 1, 2014 to Aug. 31,
2015.

Coupled with the photos, the report shows that undocumented
immigrants are subjected to lengthy detention all along the
Southwest border.

"It's really not a rare, isolated occurrence," Cantor said.

In all of the sectors, more than 227,000 people, or 67 percent of
detainees, were held for more than 24 hours; about 93,500 for more
than 48 hours; and 44,000 for more than 72 hours.

The high number of unaccompanied minors and families arriving from
Central America in 2014 may have contributed to higher numbers in
some sectors, including the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

The release of the evidence was a step forward in a long legal
battle for public awareness, attorney Mayer said.

The coalition seeks to improve treatment of detainees. A legal
victory would mean the Border Patrol "can't hold people for longer
than a certain period of time without providing them with beds and
providing them with sanitary conditions," Cantor said.

"In reality, I think it would mean they can't hold people in these
facilities for longer than 12 hours."

Assisting the American Immigration Council are the National
Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, the Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights in San Francisco and the American Civil Liberties in
Arizona.


UBER TECH: Motion to Stay NLRB Enforcement Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on Aug. 19 denied Uber's
Motion to stay the NLRB'S application for order requiring
obedience to subpoenas.

The miscellaneous action stems from the National Labor Relations
Board's investigation of Uber Technologies, Inc.'s requirement
that its drivers waive their right to engage in protected
concerted activity, specifically a class action and collective
action waiver contained in its arbitration agreement. Two
California Uber drivers -- Catherine London and John Billington --
filed virtually identical charges with Region 20 of the NLRB in
San Francisco regarding the validity of the waiver requirement
under the National Labor Relations Act.  In order to violate the
Act, the drivers must be employees, rather than independent
contractors. Thereafter, drivers in other regions filed charges
alleging various violations of the Act, and the Board's efforts
were consolidated in Region 20 to coordinate the investigation of
whether the drivers are employees under Section 2(3) of the NLRA,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 152.

In the course of its investigation into these charges, the Board
issued subpoenas requiring the custodian of records for Uber to
produce documents and provide testimony before the Board as to
those documents.  Uber did not fully comply with the subpoenas,
and, on March 2, 2016, the Board filed the action to enforce them.

The case is, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-mc-80057-KAW (N.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/c3Z4y1 from
Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal magistrate in Oakland, Calif. delayed ruling on
whether Uber must give information over whether it misclassified
drivers as independent contractors to the National Labor Relations
Board, though the denial of a settlement in a related case might
force her hand.

Following a contentious hearing on August 18, U.S. Magistrate
Judge Kandis Westmore said she would take oral argument by Uber
and the labor board under consideration and issue an order "very
shortly."

The labor board wants Uber to comply with two subpoenas it issued
for information on all current and former Uber drivers so it can
investigate multiple complaints filed against Uber throughout the
United States.

In two separate lawsuits filed in San Francisco and Los Angeles in
September 2015, Uber drivers Catherine London and John Billington
accused the company of violating the National Labor Relations Act
by requiring them to sign arbitration agreements waiving their
right to file or participate in class actions against it.

Drivers have also filed suits against Uber in New York, Chicago,
Phoenix, Kansas City, Missouri, Newark, New Jersey, and Tampa,
Florida. Not all of those cases involve the company's arbitration
agreements.

Because the arbitration agreements would only be unlawful if
drivers are employees, the labor board says it must determine
whether Uber drivers are indeed employees or if -- as Uber
contends -- they are independent contractors. The board can only
make that determination if it has access to information on all
current and former drivers, it says.

Uber has refused to comply with the subpoenas, arguing that
because they only reference the London and Billington suits only
information on those two cases needs to be provide, which the
company says it has done. It argues that even if London and
Billington are classified as employees, the arbitration provisions
in the licensing agreements they signed are legal.

Westmore indicated on August 18, that she was inclined to grant
Uber's motion to stay the labor board's application for an order
pending preliminary approval of a settlement in a similar class
action -- O'Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

However, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied preliminary
approval of that settlement late August 18, finding that it was
neither fair nor adequate and noting that the court had received
"numerous" objections to it by both individuals and attorneys
representing drivers in other California suits.

Under the O'Connor settlement, the California drivers would have
agreed that they are independent contractors and withdrawn their
charges, according to Westmore.

"Judge Chen is going to make a decision at some point about
whether to approve [the O'Connor settlement]," Westmore said. "If
the two people from California withdraw their case and you only
have people from other regions, it seems to me you could serve the
subpoena somewhere else."

She added: "It makes sense to wait and see if we have a resolution
of that because it could eliminate those charges entirely, and you
would still have the ability to investigate the underlying issue."

National Labor Board Relations Board attorney Carmen Leon told
Westmore that the labor board needs to determine whether Uber
drivers are independent contractors or employees regardless of
whether the California claims in O'Connor are dropped.

"If the parties enter into a settlement agreement with respect to
these two charges, it doesn't take away the fact that this
question still exists and the issue is nationwide," Leon said.
"The question of whether the drivers are employees and covered by
the act has to be determined."

And countering Uber's contention, Leon explained that even though
the labor board filed its subpoenas in California, and despite the
subpoenas only referencing the Los Angeles and San Francisco
suits, it has made clear to Uber that it requires nationwide
information to investigate the employment status of drivers to
decide whether the company's arbitration agreements are legal.

"The [California] charges set in motion the investigation, but
it's not limited to these two individuals," Leon said. "We would
still need nationwide information regardless of where the
subpoenas were filed."

Uber attorney Robert Hulteng told Westmore that the labor board
can still investigate the claims filed against the company both in
California and elsewhere even if she grants its motion for a stay.

"I don't think the hands of the [labor board] are tied in any way
by a stay," Hulteng said. "With respect to these two cases, Uber
has provided every scrap of paper it had. If the [labor board]
wants to have its test case on employment status, it has all the
information and ammunition it needs." Leon disagreed.

"If we had all the information we need, we wouldn't be here," she
said. "The information provided to date is not sufficient to make
a determination on this threshold issue."

Leon told Westmore that Uber has "hampered" and "impeded" the
labor board's investigation and that without the requested
information, it can't move forward with any of the cases pending
before it.

According to a March opposition filed by Uber, the labor board has
subpoenaed 107 interrogatories and 34 documents on the company's
policies regarding driver onboarding, training, payments and
monitoring, as well as information on transportation and surge
pricing, rider feedback, algorithms within the Uber application
and its arbitration agreements.

Hulteng is with Litter Mendelson in San Francisco.


UBER TECH: $84-Mil. Deal in Calif. Drivers' Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Uber faces trial on drivers' claims that they are employees
entitled to expenses and not independent contractors, after a
federal judge in San Francisco rejected $84 million settlement he
said is too risky and unfair to both sides.

"The settlement as a whole as currently structured is not fair,
adequate, and reasonable," U.S. District Judge Edward Chen wrote
in a 35-page ruling August 18.

Uber unveiled the settlement back in April, agreeing to an initial
$84 million payout, plus $16 million if the company's valuation
grew by one and a half times within a year of going public.

Class attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan was also expected to recover
up to 25 percent of that award -- between $21 million and $25
million -- but has since reduced her fee request by $10 million.

The settlement would have covered about 380,000 drivers in
Massachusetts and California who sued Uber in two separate class
actions for misclassifying them as independent contractors
required to pay for their own gas, vehicles and maintenance, while
controlling them like employees.

Under the agreement, drivers would still be considered independent
contractors, but Uber would no longer be able to "deactivate"
drivers without cause, or for low acceptance rates. It would also
give drivers at least two warnings, a written explanation with
reasons for any deactivation, and an appeals process comprising a
panel of top-rated drivers for certain types of deactivation.

Drivers unsatisfied with the appeals process could arbitrate with
Uber at the company's expense. Uber would also be required to form
a drivers association, through which drivers can bring their
concerns to management.

Drivers will also be allowed to place signs in their cars telling
riders: "Tips are not included, they are not required, but they
would be appreciated."

Uber also agreed to a $1 million payout under the Private
Attorneys General Act, a California labor law that allows workers
to recover fines on behalf of the state.

Chen took particular exception to that part of the settlement,
noting that a successful PAGA claim could result in penalties of
more than $1 billion.

"Instead of adequately considering these risks to Uber and the
full value of the PAGA claim, in settling the PAGA claim herein,
plaintiffs appear to treat the PAGA claim simply as a bargaining
chip in obtaining a global settlement for Uber's benefit, even
though the PAGA claim alone is worth more than half of the full
verdict value of all claims being released," Chen wrote.

Chen also had reservations about the non-monetary aspects of the
settlement, including the new tipping policy.

"Importantly, while Uber has agreed to 'clarify' its tipping
policy to make clear that tips are not included in the fare, it
has also actively discouraged tipping, arguing that it is
inconsistent with its business model, drivers' interests, and a
positive rider experience," Chen wrote. "In other words, Uber may
be permitting tipping, but it is also telling riders not to tip,
further decreasing the amount of tips that riders are likely to
give."

In an email, Liss-Riordan said she was disappointed with Chen's
refusal to approve the settlement, but understood why.

"His concern was not so much with the major settlement terms, or
with the agreement's resolution of claims brought by the objectors
(which he agreed with me had little value)," she said. "Instead,
his concern was primarily with the resolution of PAGA claims,
because the potential penalties under that statute could
theoretically be enormous. It has been routine in California wage
and hour litigation for PAGA claims to be settled for a small
fraction of their theoretical value, but here the court decided
not to approve the settlement largely because of that reduction."

Chen acknowledged the substantial risk for drivers if the case
goes to trial, most obvious being the possibility that the Ninth
Circuit will uphold the validity of one or both of the 2013 and
2014 arbitration agreements which Chen ruled unenforceable in
2015.

If that happens, it could force the majority of the class into
arbitration over their non-PAGA claims, jeopardizing the scope of
the case.

"Plaintiffs face a considerable risk that they will not proceed as
a class action in any court, or at least be limited to a class
action greatly reduced in size," Chen wrote. "Even if the Ninth
Circuit were to limit a finding of enforceability to the more
recent contracts, and hold only the 2013 arbitration agreement not
to be enforceable, this could substantially decrease the class
from approximately 240,000 drivers to 8,000 drivers, dramatically
lowering any class monetary recovery that plaintiffs might obtain
through the class action."

Chen added that the drivers also face the risk of losing on the
merits, writing, "The fundamental question of whether Uber drivers
are employees or independent contractors is not a simple one."

He said there are factors that support either side. While drivers
can choose when and for how long they work, Uber can still
terminate them for low acceptance rates.

Uber also risks losing on misclassification, since the burden is
on Uber to disprove an employment relationship.

Liss-Riordan said she is prepared to fight Uber in court should
new settlement talks fail.

"It is possible the parties could reach a revised agreement that
satisfies the court's concerns regarding the PAGA claims," she
said. "But if not, as I've said before, I will take the case to
trial and fight my hardest for the Uber drivers. Assuming a
revised agreement cannot be reached, it now seems very likely that
the scope of this case may be drastically reduced to about 8,000
drivers, because of Uber's arbitration clause. That means that
drivers who did not opt out of Uber's arbitration clause would
need to bring individual claims in arbitration if they want to be
a part of this.

"We are prepared to start bringing these claims individually, and
more than 1,000 drivers in California have already signed up with
us to bring individual claims in arbitration if that becomes
necessary, so other drivers who want to be included would need to
contact us."

In a statement Uber said, "The settlement, mutually agreed by both
sides, was fair and reasonable. We're disappointed in this
decision and are taking a look at our options."

The parties are due back in court on Sept. 15.

A copy of the Court's decision dated Aug. 19 is available at
https://is.gd/RkBTC7 from Leagle.com.


UNITED AIRLINES: Attendants Class Certified in "Vidrio" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered a civil minutes in the
lawsuit styled Felicia Vidrio, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07985-PSG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), granting Ms.
Vidrio's motion for certification of a class consisting of:

     All persons who were or are employed by United Airlines Inc.
     as flight attendants for whom United applied California
     income tax laws pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40116(f)(2) at any
     time from July 6, 2014 up to the present.

The Court also appoints Ms. Vidrio as class representative and
Jackson Hanson, LLP as class counsel.  The Court also approves the
Proposed Notice, provided that the deadline to submit an exclusion
form is extended to 45 days after notice is mailed.

Ms. Vidrio and Plaintiff Paul Bradley both reside in Los Angeles,
California, and are employed by United as flight attendants.  They
filed separate actions against United in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  United removed both actions to the Court.  On February 22,
2016, the Court consolidated the actions, and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2016.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs assert one claim for illegal
wage statement penalties under the Private Attorney General Act,
as well as a class action claim for illegal wage statements under
the California Labor Code.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9r0ros3m


UNITED STATES: Nov. 2017 Trial Set in IRS Tea Party Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a tea party lawsuit brought by a
group in California against the Internal Revenue Service over
alleged targeting won't go to trial in Cincinnati until late 2017.

U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett recently set out a schedule
for evidence preparation and disclosures in the case, with a final
pretrial conference set for September 2017, and a trial scheduled
for November 2017.

The 2013 class-action lawsuit filed by NorCal Tea Party Patriots
of California alleges violations of privacy laws and
constitutional rights.

The IRS inspector general said in a report that applications for
tax-exempt status with such words as "tea party" and "patriots"
were set aside, among hundreds of applications including some from
liberal groups that languished.

Some agency officials were replaced and the government says it has
made other changes.


VANGUARD HOME: Davis Seeks Certification of Clinicians Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Named Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
SCHARMAINE DAVIS, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VANGUARD HOME CARE,
LLC, VHS OF ILLINOIS, INC., and VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07277 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court to
conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice to
all similarly situated employees of the pending Fair Labor
Standards Act claims so that those affected current and former
employees will have the opportunity to join the collective action
and exercise their rights under the FLSA.

Ms. Davis alleges that Vanguard misclassified home health care
clinicians as exempt from overtime requirements under the FLSA and
has failed to pay them for all of their overtime hours worked at a
rate of time and one half for all hours worked over 40 hours per
week.  The opt-in Plaintiffs are Jacqueline Maberry, Lenore
Mlynar-Augustine, Ninetta Fiala, Ana Vaia, Annamarie Martin,
Coreen Reavy, Grant Chessman, Darlene Bingham, Emily Clarke,
Rosemarie Kirchner and Deborah Krukowski.

The Case is brought on behalf of all Clinicians, who were
classified as exempt, were paid on a hybrid "per visit" and hourly
basis, were not paid overtime compensation for time worked in
excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, and who worked for the
Defendants dating back three years from the date of notice until
the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fGzMqE4P

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


VCA INC: PAGA Claim Pending in "Duran" Suit
-------------------------------------------
VCA 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 PAGA claim remains pending in
the class suit by Jorge Duran.

The Company said, "On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant
at one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action
lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs.
VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert
claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs.

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
four of eight claims of the complaint, including the claims for
failure to pay regular and overtime wages. A PAGA claim remains
however it is unlikely to remain viable given the Court's ruling
that meal and rest break claims are individualized. We intend to
continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claim in this
action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe
losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of
operations or financial position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: Stay in La Kimba Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
VCA 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 that the stay in the case by La
Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 16, 2014, two additional former
veterinary assistants filed a purported class action lawsuit
against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri
Brakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to
assert claims on behalf of current and former veterinary
assistants, kennel assistants, and client service representatives
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
improperly failed to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to
reimburse for certain business-related expenses, and engaged in
unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs."

"In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba
Bradsbery lawsuit, which stay remains in place. If the stay is
lifted, we intend to vigorously defend against the Bradsbery
action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe
losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of
operations or financial position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: "Lopez" Case Settlement Went Into Effect
-------------------------------------------------
VCA 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's Judgment approving
the settlement in the lawsuit by Carlos Lopez went into effect on
June 1, 2016.

The Company said, "On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided
courier services with respect to our laboratory clients in
California filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics
Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit,
is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier
services in California. The lawsuit sought to assert claims on
behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, among
other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech
Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent
contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and
improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit
sought damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs."

"The parties agreed to settle the action, on a class-wide basis,
for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000. Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC, has agreed to pay half of the claim. Accordingly,
as of June 30, 2016, we have accrued the remaining fifty percent.

"The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of
fault by any of the defendants named in the complaint. Antech
Diagnostics and Logistics Delivery Solutions agreed to the
settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and
expense associated with protracted litigation.

"The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
November 30, 2015 and issued an order granting final approval of
the settlement on March 25, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the Court
entered the Judgment approving the settlement and the judgment
went into effect on June 1, 2016. The final settlement amount was
$903,338.92 half of which was paid by DSA pursuant to our
agreement. Payments to class members were made in early July 2016
and this matter is now closed.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Has Yet to Reply to Palkon and Houston Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin America 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 not yet
formally responded to the complaints by Dennis Palkon and Thomas
Houston.

The company said, "On April 20, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against us, our board of
directors, Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alpine Acquisition Corp.,
captioned Dennis Palkon v. Virgin America, et al., Case No.
CIV538282 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other
things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it
should it be consummated, as well as other equitable relief and
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees."

"On April 21, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the outside directors on our board of directors, captioned
Thomas Houston v. Donald J. Carty, et al., Case No. 12235 (Del.
Ch.). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed transaction, or to rescind it should it be consummated,
and to require the outside directors to exercise their fiduciary
duties and commence a sale process and obtain a transaction that
is in the best interests of stockholders, as well as other
equitable relief and damages, including attorneys' and experts'
fees. On May 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On June 8, 2016, the plaintiff withdrew the motion
for expedited proceedings.

"We are reviewing both of the complaints and have not yet formally
responded to either of them, but we believe that the allegations
in each complaint are without merit and we intend to defend
against them vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain,
however, and there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood
that our defense of each action will be successful. Additional
complaints containing substantially similar allegations may be
filed in the future."


VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Dismissed "Zwang" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Virgin America 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
plaintiff's request for dismissal of the case by Henry Zwang.

The Company said, "On May 10, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against C. David Cush, our
president and chief executive officer, our board of directors,
Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alpine Acquisition Corp., captioned
Henry Zwang v. C. David Cush, et al., Case No. CIV538604 (Cal.
Sup. Ct.). The complaint alleged, among other things, that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement. The complaint sought, among other things, either to
enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be
consummated, as well as other equitable relief and damages,
including attorneys' and experts' fees. The plaintiff filed a
request for dismissal without prejudice on July 11, 2016 and the
court granted such request on July 12, 2016."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Contempt Court Motion v. Merchaw Law Group Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Robinson, writing for Law Times, reports that lawyers say a
recent Superior Court decision concerning a class action against
Volkswagen serves as a warning to firms vying to represent
plaintiffs in big class action suits.

Justice Edward Belobaba dismissed a contempt of court motion
against Merchant Law Group LLP and two of its lawyers,
Joshua Merchant and Anthony Tibbs, after it was alleged they had
breached the carriage order of the class action being brought
against Volkswagen in Ontario for its emissions scandal.

Justice Belobaba said the allegations could not be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, but he awarded $5,000 in costs against MLG and
its lawyers.

He also criticized the lawyers' actions as "careless,
unprofessional and arguable in breach" of his carriage order.

"The court's displeasure could be expressed by simply denying
costs to the defendants.  But, in my opinion, this would be
insufficient," he wrote in the decision.

In December 2015, Justice Belobaba granted carriage -- the
exclusive right to represent members of a class action lawsuit in
the province -- to a consortium of eight law firms, which did not
include MLG.

Despite the order, the Regina-based firm sent out an e-mail blast
in January to 9,500 potential members of the action nationwide --
3,500 of which were Ontario residents -- inviting them to join
their own individual-joinder action or class proceeding, according
to the decision.

Around 150 Ontario residents signed and returned retainer
agreements from the e-mails to MLG.  The consortium then brought a
motion on Feb. 3 when they were made aware of the situation.

In that proceeding, Justice Belobaba told MLG that the e-mail
blast "may well be misleading" and in breach of the December
carriage order.  MLG agreed not to carry out any of the 150
retainer agreements and to send out a clarifying e-mail, according
to the decision of that proceeding, which was released on Feb. 12.

But then MLG lawyers continued to e-mail Ontario residents, the
decision said.

Joshua Merchant allegedly sent a responding e-mail to a resident
on Feb. 8 and Tibbs allegedly did so on Feb. 15 and 16.

Once this information surfaced, the consortium brought the motion
of contempt against the two lawyers.

In his decision on the contempt motion, Justice Belobaba said he
could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Merchant and Tibbs
had intentionally and wilfully tried to scoop Ontario residents
into their own class action suit.

This was because the retainer that MLG sent out invited residents
to "individual proceedings by joinder or in class proceedings."

Justice  Belobaba said Tibbs was "undoubtedly" trying to scoop
Ontario members for a joinder action, but it could not be proven
that he was doing so for an MLG class action suit.

"However, this disposition should not be misunderstood as an
endorsement of the defendants' behavior," he said.

"About 126 Ontario residents received MLG retainer agreements that
explicitly mentioned 'class proceedings.'  This was contrary to
the Carriage Order."

Justice Belobaba's criticism of the defendants and the fact he
awarded costs against them should serve as a warning to lawyers
thinking about testing the boundaries of a carriage order, lawyers
say.

"It highlights the importance of how critical it is that a lawyer
not just govern themselves by the letter of the order but also by
its spirit," says Ren Bucholz -- rbucholz@litigate.com -- a class
action lawyer with Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP, who is
not involved in the proceedings.

"This is certainly a situation where the lawyers involved and the
conduct described in the decision skated right up to that line
and, while it may not have been contempt for the reasons that
Justice Belobaba found, it was certainly outside the bounds of
what I would hope that any responsible counsel would engage in."

Ian Matthews -- imatthews@counsel-toronto.com -- a class action
lawyer with Lax O'Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP, says the decision
was the latest instalment in what has been an ongoing saga
concerning who has control over the Volkswagen emissions scandal
suit in Ontario.

"The carriage motion is supposed to be the way in which these
matters get resolved," says Mr. Matthews, who is not involved in
the Volkswagen class action.

"The court's not going to look favorably on attempts that may be
construed as circumventing the spirit of those orders," he adds.

Mr. Bucholz says it is common for firms to explore different ways
to identify potential class members, but what was unusual in this
case was that MLG were allegedly doing so after they lost the
carriage motion.

"This is very unusual and should be discouraged and is the kind of
thing this decision will highlight as a no-fly zone for other
plaintiff class action lawyers," he says.

The consortium is still in discussions with Volkswagen, but no
settlement has been reached in the class action suit, says the
lawyer representing the consortium on the contempt of court
motion, David O'Connor -- dfo@royoconnor.ca -- of Roy O'Connor
LLP.

Mr. O'Connor says Justice Belobaba's decision has given a clear
indication of the court's displeasure with the actions of the
defendants.

"Our goal, our desire was to safeguard the interests of the
potential class members and I think the decision has at least in
some part achieved that," he says.

Merchant, Tibbs and MLG did not respond to requests for comment.

"This decision is a reminder that that level of understandable
self-interest on the part of the plaintiff law firms can't be
without limit and that lawyers should be very careful to remember
that they are first and foremost officers of the court and not
simply legal entrepreneurs out to secure their next opportunity,"
Mr. Bucholz says.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Lawyers Seek More Compensation for Car Owners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Volkswagen owners in the United States will receive about $20,000
per car as compensation for the company's diesel deception.
Volkswagen owners in Europe at most get a software update and a
short length of plastic tubing.

The startling gap in treatment is the result of European laws that
shield corporations from class-action suits brought by unhappy
consumers.  Now a group of online legal start-ups wants to change
the status quo.

Lawyers in Berlin, Paris and elsewhere in Europe are teaming up
with new online services to recruit clients en masse and try to
get around the usual restrictions on consumer lawsuits.  If they
are successful, the cost to Volkswagen will dwarf the company's
$15 billion settlement in the United States.

The campaigns are attracting people like Juergen Franz, a retired
advertising executive in Munich who says his Volkswagen, a diesel
Tiguan sport utility vehicle, burns more fuel after a software
update that was part of a mandatory recall.  He drives the same
route every morning and now fills his tank more often.

"Why are they getting so much and we're getting nothing?"
Mr. Franz said of American owners.

Plaintiffs' lawyers hope the efforts will signal a turning point
in European jurisprudence, opening up a clearer path for aggrieved
customers to join forces across borders to sue big corporations.
The case could be the largest consumer action of its kind in
Europe.

Owners' representatives in Europe are seeking a maximum of 5,000
euros per car, or about $5,600, much less than in the United
States.  But even that figure could be financially devastating.
There are 8.5 million tainted diesels in Europe, compared with
about 500,000 in the United States that are covered by the
settlement.

So far, only a fraction of Volkswagen owners in Europe have banded
together, but more are signing up.  Those claims are just one
front in an expanding global onslaught of litigation against and
official investigations into Volkswagen stemming from its
emissions cheating, including ongoing criminal inquiries in the
United States and Germany.

European governments, traditionally deferential to Volkswagen, one
of the region's largest employers, have joined in as well. The
European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, is
coordinating efforts by national consumer groups to collect money
from the carmaker.  And the German state of Bavaria says it will
sue Volkswagen on behalf of its employees' pension fund, which
owns sharply devalued shares in the company.

The biggest financial threat may come from new online businesses
that have found ways around European obstacles to class-action
suits.

While laws vary, most European countries do not allow large class
actions of the variety that led to the $15 billion settlement in
the United States.  Nor do many European countries, including
Germany, allow lawyers to work on commission, so customers who sue
companies risk paying not only their own legal fees but also the
other side's if they lose.

That is in contrast to the United States, where it is standard
practice for lawyers to collect a hefty percentage of the award if
a suit is successful and nothing if it's not.

The start-ups are taking advantage of a loophole that allows
European consumers to sign over their legal claims to third-party
service providers, which then try to recover damages.  And the
internet has made it possible to recruit huge numbers of consumers
who share similar gripes.

People who search Google for the German words for "Volkswagen
damage claim" see an ad for the website My-right.de, one of
several start-ups using the internet to recruit Volkswagen owners.
In Paris, Weclaim.com is attracting French customers. Both
websites have teamed up with lawyers and are expanding into other
European countries.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Seeks Review From M.D. Fla. Ruling in "Jones" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Waffle House, Inc., and WH Capital, LLC, filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled William Jones v.
Waffle House, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01637-RBD-DAB, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Jones
attempted to get a job at a Waffle House in Ormond Beach, Fla. in
December 2014, and claims the defendant restaurant chain, an icon
in the Southeastern U.S., violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
because it procured a background report from defendant The Source
for Public Data, L.P, without taking adequate steps to make sure
the information reported was accurate.  He alleges that Waffle
House refused to hire him based on the information about supposed
criminal convictions, despite it being false.  He sued the
restaurant chain on October 1, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as William Jones v. Waffle House,
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-15574, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM JONES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com
                  Mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com

               - and -

          Alexandria Rose Kachadoorian, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          2029 Century Park E, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3004
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          E-mail: akachadoorian@stroock.com

               - and -

          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
          E-mail: justin@counselonegroup.com
                  anthony@counselonegroup.com

Defendants-Appellants WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., and WH CAPITAL, LLC, are
represented by:

          David M. Gettings, Esq.
          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7747
          Facsimile: (757) 687-1545
          E-mail: david.gettings@troutmansanders.com
                  john.lynch@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Richard Wade Smith, Esq.
          FISHER RUSHMER, PA
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 2200
          PO Box 3753
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 843-2111
          E-mail: rsmith@fisherlawfirm.com


WAHLBURGERS: 5 Former Employees File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that since its opening last year,
"Wahlburgers in Coney Island has been rampant with wage theft and
violations of federal and state labor law," five former employees
of the Mark and Donnie Wahlberg-owned burger joint claim in a
federal class action in Brooklyn.


WARNER CHAPPELL: Lawyers Get $4.6MM in 'Happy Birthday' Song Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the attorneys who persuaded a federal judge that the song "Happy
Birthday to You" belongs in the public domain were awarded $4.6
million in fees .

U.S. District Judge George King in June ended decades of
uncertainty about the status of one of the most recognizable songs
in the English language when he approved a $14 million class
action settlement and said the song would no longer be afforded
copyright protection.

Music publisher Warner/Chappell claimed ownership of the song and
charged film and television producers between five- and six-figure
fees to use it.  By some estimates, "Happy Birthday to You" netted
the publisher $2 million a year in royalties.

The melody was composed in the late 1800s by schoolteacher Mildred
Hill, of Louisville. It was a variation of "Good Morning to All,"
with lyrics by Mildred's sister, Patty Hill.

New York filmmaker Jennifer Nelson was astonished when
Warner/Chappell charged her $1,500 to license the song for a
documentary about the composition's history and origins.

Nelson filed a class action lawsuit in 2013, claiming
Warner/Chappell had collected and continued to collect millions of
dollars in licensing fees even though authorship and ownership of
the song were in dispute.

Her attorneys built their case around extensive investigation,
including an analysis of U.S. Copyright Office and Library of
Congress records, historical source materials, old court filings
and news reports

Her counsel included the firms Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, attorney Randall Newman, Donahue Fitzgerald, Glancy Prongay
& Murray, and Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah.

On August 16, King awarded them attorneys' fees of 33 percent of
the $14 million settlement fund: $4,620,000.

The case is, Good Morning to You Productions Corp., et al. v.
Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., et al., CV 13-4460-GHK (MRWx)(C.D.
Cal.).


ZARA USA: Defrauds Customers, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that British royals and Kardashians shop at fast-fashion retailer
Zara, but a federal class action claims in San Francisco, the
flagship brand of the world's largest clothier tricks ordinary
U.S. shoppers into paying inflated prices by marking price tags in
euros and intentionally miscalculating the exchange rate.

"Behind its faáade of attainable elegance, Zara is engaged in a
widespread practice of deceiving American consumers through a
classic bait and switch . . . being unjustly enriched to the tune
of billions of dollars," according to the Aug. 19 lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Devon Rose says he stumbled onto the fraud three
months ago when he bought a few T-shirts at the Zara store in
Sherman Oaks, north of Los Angeles. The shirts bore price tags for
EUR9.95, but at the register "he discovered, to his dismay, that
he had actually been charged $17.90 for each shirt," the complaint
states.

As the cashier was telling him the $17.90 was due to the exchange
rate, "another customer called in to the store to inquire about
the very same kind of price issue. This customer was given the
same explanation," Rose says.

Refusing to give up, he pressed the question, and "was told that
the store used a device to calculate the conversion rate
applicable to each item, but that this device had been lost." He
took his complaint to a manager and "was told that no such device
existed," but was assured that the exchange rate was accurate,
Rose says.

At the true exchange rate that day, 9.95 euros came to $11.26,
Rose's attorney Ben Meiselas says in the complaint.

Rose, who has worked in the financial industry, was "confused" by
the price stickers, Meiselas said. "He thought at the most it
would be slightly more."

Zara is the flagship brand of Inditex, the world's largest
clothing retailer, which is owned by Amancio Ortega, the second-
richest person in the world, according to the complaint.

Zara brought just-in-time production methods to the fashion
industry and reputedly can deliver a new design to market in as
little as a week, compared to the many months of older apparel
chains. It has more than 2,100 outlets in 88 countries, including
71 in the United States.

Rose says the company's U.S. arm, defendant Zara USA, "has
perpetuated a corporate policy of misinforming consumers."

"(T)he conversion rate is entirely misapplied -- to the extent it
is even applied at all -- such that U.S. consumers are paying far
more than the true prices of the products." Zara's euro pricing
confuses customers "and lures them to the register," where they
are charged inflated prices untethered to reality, according to
the lawsuit.

Alternatively, the company pastes price stickers in dollars over
the original euros price tag, with the dollar price "far in excess
of the true converted amount if the euro price printed on the tag
were properly converted," the complaint states.

The 26-page lawsuit includes photos of such price tags, and photos
of Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and reality TV star Kim
Kardashian carrying Zara shopping bags.

Meiselas said his law firm, Geragos & Geragos, investigated Zara
USA's price tags broadly and found both approaches are widespread.
Meiselas said he personally checked the downtown Los Angeles
store.  He said his client is passionate about pursuing the case
because it is "a pocketbook issue" for the millions of ordinary
consumers who shop at Zara stores.

"Mr. Rose brings this putative class action to compel Zara to be a
transparent and responsible corporate citizen by ceasing its
practice of defrauding customers and making whole those consumers
who have been victims of its deceptive practices," the lawsuit
states.

Zara USA said in a statement that it "vehemently denies any
allegations that the company engages in deceptive pricing
practices."

"We pride ourselves in our fundamental commitment to transparency
and honest, ethical conduct with our valued customers," the
company said.

Rose seeks class certification, restitution, and punitive damages
for fraud, negligence, unfair business practices and unjust
enrichment.


ZILLOW GROUP: Class Action Appeal Stayed Until Sept. 19
-------------------------------------------------------
Zillow 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 appellate proceedings
are stayed until September 19, 2016 pending the resolution of a
class action settlement.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, with the caption
Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleged, among other
things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of
employees' hours worked. After the court granted our two motions
to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act."

"On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On May 5, 2016, the
parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for an immaterial amount. The
settlement does not contain any admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties. The
settlement class includes all current and former inside sales
consultants employed by Zillow, Inc. in any office from January 1,
2010 through the present.

"We have recorded an accrual for an immaterial amount related to
the settlement as of June 30, 2016. The settlement is contingent
on the court approving the class action settlement and upon
Zillow, Inc.'s complete resolution of the DOL compliance review.

"On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our
petition for permission to appeal the order granting class
certification. Appellate proceedings before the circuit court are
stayed until September 19, 2016 pending the resolution of the
settlement. We do not believe there is a reasonable possibility
that a material loss in excess of amounts accrued may be
incurred."


* Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements Valid Under NLRB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holtzman Hedrick, Esq., of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that on August 10, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals -- for the third time -- rejected the
National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) position that class action
waivers in arbitration agreements are invalid under the National
Labor Relations Act.  In a short opinion, the Circuit said it was
bound by its two previous published opinions directly addressing
this issue and ruling that such waivers are valid pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act.

The ruling on Aug. 10 was the first time the Fifth Circuit has
spoken on the issue since the Seventh Circuit recently held that
employers cannot lawfully include class action waivers in
arbitration agreements (adopting the NLRB's rationale).  If you're
keeping track at home, the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have
all upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements, while
the Seventh Circuit struck them down.  This disagreement among the
federal appellate court sets up a classic circuit split that will
surely need to be decided by the Supreme Court.

While the NLRB could petition the Supremes to take up the case,
the guess here is that the Board will want to wait until a ninth
judge is seated on the High Court (taking the late Justice
Scalia's position), hoping to get the most favorable bench
possible, as that final Justice may very well decide the fate of
this powerful tool favored by employers.


* Securities Class Actions Rise in Canada, 37 Cases Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Middlemiss, writing for Law Times, reports that between 2008
and June of 2016, Canada has seen 37 settlements of securities
class actions amounting to $662.8 million, according to proxy
advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services.

Only halfway into 2016, and public companies have already paid out
$32 million in settlements, which exceeds last year's $26.5-
million total.  And that's only settlements.  Millions of dollars
more are being spent prosecuting and defending claims.

Take the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice cost ruling in
Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, where Justice G.R.
Strathy ordered CIBC to pay the plaintiffs costs of $2.7 million
for a case that has yet to reach trial.

Andy Cottrell, associate director, head of class action client
service at ISS, says Canada has become a world leader in
securities class actions, fighting with Australia for second spot.

He says that, five to six years ago, the U.S. was the automatic
choice of jurisdiction for filing most securities class actions;
however, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Morrison v.
National Australia Bank Ltd. changed that globally.  That's when
the U.S. Supreme Court shut down access to its courts for
investors whose shares trade on foreign exchanges.

"Since that decision has been made, Australia has really gotten
significantly more active," he says.  Now, Canada and Australia
are leapfrogging each other for second place.  He says the number
of cases each year varies.

"It ebbs and flows," he says.

Currently, though, some question if we are entering a lull.
Linda Fuerst -- linda.fuerst@nortonrosefulbright.com -- a partner
at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, says that, in 2015, there were only
four statutory securities class actions launched in Canada, the
lowest since the 2008 financial crisis.  Yet, the U.S. saw 234
filings in 2015, the highest since 2008.  Canada also saw a bumper
crop of 18 initial public offerings filed in 2015, which often
results in some filings. Yet, none have surfaced.

"It's puzzling why that happened last year," says Ms. Fuerst,
speculating that the fact that many of the IPOs outperformed the
market possibly held down the filings.

"There haven't been a ton of new filings," agrees Mike Robb, a
plaintiff class actions lawyer at Siskinds LLP in London, Ont.

"They tend to happen when the markets are rough."

Nonetheless, there is still a strong pipeline of cases and it
seems that every month a new ruling springs up adding to the case
law.  For example, carriage motions, where plaintiffs fight for
control over a class suit, saw two rulings back to back in the
early part of summer, a rarity.

In early June, in Kowalyshyn v Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., the Ontario Superior Court provisionally
granted carriage of the Valeant class action to a consortium of
Sutts Strosberg LLP and Koskie Minsky LLP, representing
Joyce Kowalyshyn, over a team of Siskinds and Rochon Genova LLP,
representing Lorraine O'Brien, in what Justice Paul Perell called
a "hard fought" motion.

He noted "determining carriage was very difficult. . . . the
proposed class actions are very complex and advance gargantuan
claims for many billions of dollars, and the carriage battle was
between well matched Class Counsel, whose firms collectively would
have undoubtedly already invested a great deal of money for the
proposed class actions."

"The rival law firms were arrogantly proud about the merits of the
design of their respective class actions and aggressively
dismissive of their rival's plans."

Justice Perell examined 16 factors to consider when determining
carriage, and sided with the Kowalyshyn team, staying the O'Brien
case, subject to further possible stay motions involving a similar
Quebec action.

Then, in July, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued its carriage
motion ruling in the Mancinelli v. Barrick Gold Corporation
appeal, a case involving disclosures around the gold miner's
Pascua-Lama mine.

The appeal court upheld the lower court ruling and awarded
carriage to a group headed by Rochon Genova, which included
Merchant Law Group LLP and Rosen Naster LLP, over the dream team
of Koskie Minsky, Siskinds, Sutts Strosberg and Groia and Company.
The court held that the lower court was "entitled to deference"
and "the appellants demonstrated no legal error in the application
of the [carriage] test."

The Koskie consortium argued that its claim was more focused and
streamlined, and that its team had greater expertise in securities
class actions.  They also took issue with Merchant's presence in
the consortium, given its history of disciplinary action and
judicial criticism, but those arguments didn't fly with the appeal
court.



                            *********

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  * * *