CAR_Public/160831.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 174




                            Headlines


16 FOR 8 HOSPITALITY: Gets Final OK of $170K "Azogue" Suit Deal
321 CAPITAL: ABC Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed and Terminated
lA DISTRIBUTION: "Abedi" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursement
A AND R MOBILE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ACUMEN SOLUTIONS: Faces "Barekzai" Suit Over FLSA Violation

AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Pursued in QLT Merger Suit
AMERICAN EQUITY: Says Opportunities for Appeal Have Passed
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Silva" Case in Briefing Stage
APOLLO GLOBAL: Update on Lawsuits Over Fresh Market Merger Deal

APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Remand Fully Briefed, Awaits Ruling
APOLLO EDUCATION: Deadline to Amend Suit Extended Until Nov. 8
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Ninth Circuit Appeal
AUTOZONE PARTS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Deceptive Rewards Program
BANCORP INC: $17.5 Million Class Action Settlement Reached

BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Class Action in Massachusetts
BISTRO MARKETPLACE: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BMO HARRIS: "Shepard" Suit Seeks Back Wages, Overtime
BOBBY ALVIN RISHER: "Maldonado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BROOKLAND MANOR: 150 Families File Class Action

BURGER KING: Roman Seeks Final Certification of Class
CARRIER IQ: $9MM Settlement in Privacy Suit Gets Final Approval
CCB CREDIT: "Schmitz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement of Merger Case Still Pending

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Sciabacucchi Case Underway
CITIBANK: "Cain" Class Removed Suit to District Maryland
CITY OF HOPE: "Seper" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Loveland Seeks Certification of Class
COOK CITY, IL: Sept. 22 Hearing on Williams' Bid to Certify Class

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Faces "Grae" Securities Lawsuit in Tenn.
COUNTRY CLUB OF STOW: Sued Over Unredeemable Cash Card
DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Excess Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Incorrect Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: Paramount Suit Alleges Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: 3662 Camp Wisdom Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: HMK Ltd. Seeks Review of Protest Valuation Denial
DANISCO USA: Class Certification Bid in "Rixen" Suit Denied
DIMITRI CONSTRUCTION: Soto Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
DIRECTV LLC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT, Commissions

EAST PENN: "Mcevoy" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
ENCOMPASS SERVICES: "McDonald" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
ENVESTNET INC: $200,000 Agreement on Fees and Expenses Reached
FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Waterford Complaint Remains Pending
FBR & CO: Defendants Opposing Remand of Class Actions

FCA US: Faltermeier Seeks Certification of Class
FERRELLGAS: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Damages Claims
FIFTH STREET: $14MM Deal Subject to Additional Discovery
FIFTH STREET: Hearing on "Mootness Fee" Held
FORD MOTOR: Cars Stall or Suddenly Decelerate, Class Action Says

FOREVER 21: Faces "Patterson" Class Suit in District New Jersey
GENERAL NUTRITION: Bid to Certify Class in "Howes" Suit Denied
GOOGLE INC: Fillekes Seeks Certification of Class in "Heath" Suit
GREENE'S ENERGY: "Matte" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
HERC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Fully Briefed

HP INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over 401(k) Plan Fiduciary Violation
HRG GROUP: Settlement Completion in "Cressy" Case Extended
HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Class Action Pending
HUMAN RESOURCE: "Lamones" Sues Over Adverse Background Check
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Dismissal of Customer Action Sought

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Accord Up for Sept. 8 Approval
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
INTREXON CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Lawsuits Consolidated
J.B HUNT: Drivers File Class Action in Los Angeles
J2 GLOBAL: Motion for Summary Judgment in Paldo Sign Case Pending

J2 GLOBAL: Settlement of LEO and Dancel Case Still Pending
JOHN KASICH: Ball, et al. Seek Certification of Class
JOLIET STAFFING: "Gordon" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages
K12 INC: Faces "Tarapara" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal.
LAWTON CORRECTIONAL: Court Defers Ruling on Class Cert. Bid

LASERSHIP INC: Faces "Caraballo" Suit Over FLSA Violation
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Defending Cases Related to Public Offering
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Stay Securities Case Denied
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending
LIFE INSURANCE: Sept. 22 Hearing Set on Dolemba's Bid to Certify

LIFE LINE: "Neuharth" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
LIFELOCK INC: Settlement in "Ebarle" Case Awaits Final Approval
LIFELOCK INC: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend "Avila" Complaint
LIFELOCK INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Litig. Pending
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bennett" Class Suit Transferred to W.D.N.C.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Dunkin" Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hotaling" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Transferred "Ryan" Suit to District Nevada
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Goodling" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "McPherson" Suit Transferred to W.D. Penn.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Strong" Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Leonard" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
MCKESSON CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in "True Health" Denied
MDL 2295: $18MM Settlement of TCPA Suit Awaits Final Approval
MDL 2371: UMS Class Action Appeal Still Pending

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
NCC BUSINESS: Certification of Class Sought in "Woodward" Suit
NEW MEXICO: Faces Workers' Class Action for Back Pay
NEW YORK: OTDA Faces Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Dismissal Bid Up for Oral Argument

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Case Underway
OMNI LIMOUSINE: "Keen" Suit Seeks Overtime, Waiting Time Pay
ON TIME SECURING: "Hane" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued on Sept. 19
ORANGE COUNTY: "McMahon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES: Sued in Tex. Over FLSA Violation
OUTERWALL INC: "Filippov" Sues Over Acquisition by Apollo Global
OWENS & MINOR: "Snyder" Suit Removed to District of Maryland
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Has Reached Settlement of Class Suit
PCP FOR LIFE: "Bunker" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA

PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Urban" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
PIZZA THEATRE: "Huntley" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews, et al. Seek Certification of Class
PROJECT INVESTORS: CRYPTSY Owners Class Certified in Leidel Suit
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss "Hsu" Remains Pending

QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Court Entered Final Judgment in "Nguyen"
R & A OYSTERS: Cordova, et al. Seek Class Certification
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Hirthe Moves for Certification of Class
RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss "Reynolds" Case Awaits Ruling
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Certification in "Espejo" Suit Denied
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Weller" Suit Pending
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gaitan" Suit Claims
SOLARCITY CORP: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
SOLARCITY CORP: Still Defends TCPA Action in California

SOLARCITY CORP: Defending "Gibbs" Action in Massachusetts
SUNBURST CONSULTING: Faces "Baker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Herod" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
TILGHMAN BEACH: "Humphries" Suit Removed to Dist. of S. C.

TIVO INC: "Klein" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Paid $0.3 Miillion in Attorneys Fees
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jackie 888 Class Suit in California
TRUECAR INC: Continues to Defend NY Lanham Act Litigation
TRUECAR INC: Appeal in "Mahapatra" Case Dismissed

TRUECAR INC: 2nd Status Conference in "Rose" Suit on October 12
TWITTER INC: Misappropriates People's Identities, Suit Says
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Arguments Heard on Bids to Exclude Experts
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: "Pixler" Suit Alleges Vehicle Defect
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Takes Class Cert. Bid Under Submission

VALDEMAR 5108: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
VALENCE HEALTH: "Burns" Files Suit Over FLSA Violation
WALGREEN CO: Certification Bid in "Cintron" Suit Denied as Moot
WALTER INVESTMENT: $24MM Settlement Up for Oct. 14 Hearing
WALTER INVESTMENT: Settlement Hearing Moved to Aug. 30

WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Now Closed
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Motion to Dismiss "Roberts" Suit Underway
WENDCENTRAL CORP: "Solarek" Suit Seeks Damages and Reinstatement
WHITEWAVE FOODS: "Louie" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Merger Action Closed

WILLIS TOWERS: Still Defending Lawsuits Related to Stanford
WILLIS TOWERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Date Set in "Sanchez" Case
YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal in Securities Case Ongoing
YELP INC: $600,000 in Meal & Rest Case Still Pending
YELP INC: $200,000 Accord in Employee Suit Awaits Final Approval

ZARA USA: Faces "Rose" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California


                            *********


16 FOR 8 HOSPITALITY: Gets Final OK of $170K "Azogue" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas P. Griesa entered an order and opinion in the
lawsuit styled VICTOR SEBASTIAN AZOGUE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. 16 FOR 8 HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NUM
PANG SANDWICH SHOP, 32 FOR 16 HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NUM PANG
SANDWICH SHOP, 8 FOR 4 HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NUM PANG SANDWICH
SHOP, NUM PANG HOLDCO LLC, RATHA CHUAPOLY, and BENJAMIN DAITZ,
Case No. 13-cv-7899 (S.D.N.Y.), granting the Plaintiff's motion
for certification of the settlement class, final approval of the
class action settlement, approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act
settlement, and approval of attorneys' fees.

The Court certifies this Class for settlement purposes: all non-
exempt (non-managerial) individuals employed at the following Num
Pang Establishments: (1) 16 for 8 Hospitality, LLC, (2) 32 for 16
Hospitality LLC, (3) 8 for 4 Hospitality LLC, (4) Num Pang Holdco
LLC, (5) 128 for 64 Hospitality LLC, (6) 256 for 128 Hospitality
LLC, and (7) Num Pang Commissary LLC, from November 6, 2007
through August 21, 2015.

Judge Griesa grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
awards Class Counsel $56,660, which is 33.33% of the settlement
fund.  Judge Griesa also orders that within 14 days after the
Effective Date, the Defendants must deposit into the Settlement
Fund Account, to be established by the Claims Administrator, a sum
equal to $170,000.  Within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date,
the Claims Administrator will distribute the money in the
Settlement Fund Account by making these payments:

   (1) Paying Class Counsel the Court-approved Attorneys' Fees;
       and

   (2) Paying Class Members (who did not opt-out) their
       Individual Settlement Payment.

A copy of the Order & Opinion is available at no charge at
http://goo.gl/khLWxWfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs Victor Sebastian Azogue, Shanell Young, Jose Luis
Verdejo, Kevin Hsu, Manuel Chavez and Walter A. Palacios are
represented by:

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

Plaintiff Victor Sebastian Azogue is represented by:

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

Defendants 16 for 8 Hospitality, L.L.C., 32 for 16 Hospitality
L.L.C., Num Pang Sandwich Shop, 8 for 4 Hospitality L.L.C., Num
Pang Holdco L.L.C., Ratha Chuapoly and Benjamin Daitz are
represented by:

          Andrew W. Singer, Esq.
          Jason B. Klimpl, Esq.
          TANNENBAUM HELPERN SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
          900 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 508-6700
          E-mail: singer@thshlaw.com
                  klimpl@thsh.com

Defendants Num Pang Holdings LLC and Num Pang Commissary LLC are
represented by:

          Jason B. Klimpl, Esq.
          TANNENBAUM HELPERN SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
          900 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 508-6700
          E-mail: klimpl@thsh.com


321 CAPITAL: ABC Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed and Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case
titled ABC Business Forms, Inc. v. 321 Capital Partners, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06256 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- a notice of voluntary dismissal has been filed;

   -- Plaintiff's individual claims against the Defendant are
      dismissed with prejudice, and with each party bearing its
      own costs;

   -- Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed without prejudice
      and with each party bearing its own costs;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is moot; and

   -- Civil Case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ICSbURW7


lA DISTRIBUTION: "Abedi" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Latif Abedi, in his individual and representative
capacity, Plaintiff, v. lA Distribution, Inc., a California
Corporation, Nikola Y. Kim and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC631365, (Cal. Super., August 23, 2016),
seeks minimum wages and overtime, damages resulting from failure
to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, statutorily-
mandated compensation for missed meal and rest breaks,
reimbursement for business expenditures incurred as well as all
wages due upon termination under the California Labor Code.

IA Distribution, Inc. is a California corporation owned by Nikola
Y. Kim based in Harbor City, California.  The company is engaged
in the business of delivering packages on behalf of other
businesses, including Dynamex, a nationwide logistics company and
Amazon.com. Abedi worked as a delivery driver and was paid as an
independent contractor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corbett H. Williams, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CORBETT H. WILLIAMS
      300 Spectrum Center Dr., Suite 1575
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 679-9909
      Facsimile: (949) 535-1031
      Email: cwilliams@chwilliamslaw.com


A AND R MOBILE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Cortney Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A and R Mobile Home Supply and Service,
Inc., Jan McGough and Russell McGough, Individually and as
Officers and Directors of A and R Mobile Home Supply and Service,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00577 (E.D. Ark., August 10,
2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fee
as a result of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and
Arkansas Civil Justice Reform Act.

A and R sells goods and services related to mobile homes,
including installation, repair or maintenance, air conditioning
and heating units. Plaintiff was employed as a technician.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Joshua West, Esq
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             west@sanfordlawfirm.com


ACUMEN SOLUTIONS: Faces "Barekzai" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABDUL WALI BAREKZAI 43805 CENTRAL STATION DRIVE ASHBURN, VIRIGNIA
20147 AND JASON WARE 2138 CARTWRIGHT PLACE RESTON, VIRGINIA 20191
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
ACUMEN SOLUTIONS, INC., 1660 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 500 MCLEAN,
VIRGINIA 22102 SERVE: AFSANEH AZAR AMBROSE
1660 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 500 MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01083-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., August 23, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

ACUMEN SOLUTIONS, INC. engages in the business of nation-wide and
international information technology and consultant services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 587-9373
     Fax: (301) 587-9397
     E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Pursued in QLT Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, 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 co-lead plaintiffs
and defendants filed a joint motion to stay the briefing schedule
in a class action lawsuit while they pursued mediation.

On June 14, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement ("Merger Agreement") pursuant to which the Company will
be merged with a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of QLT Inc.
("QLT"). Upon completion of the proposed merger, each outstanding
share of the Company's common stock will be exchanged for 1.0256
shares of QLT common stock. QLT plans to change its name to
Novelion Therapeutics Inc. ("Novelion") upon closing of the
proposed transaction and its common shares will trade on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of
JUXTAPID and the Company's financial performance in violation of
the federal securities laws.

On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order permitting
and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file responsive
pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and
defendants to file reply briefs.

Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June
1, 2015. The amended complaint filed against the Company and
certain of its former executive officers alleges that defendants
made certain misstatements and omissions during the first three
quarters of 2014 related to the Company's revenue projections for
JUXTAPID for 2014, as well as data underlying those projections,
in violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015.  On August 21, 2015,
co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second amended complaint,
which alleges that the defendants made certain misstatements and
omissions from April 2013 through October 2014 related to the
marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial projections, as
well as data underlying those projections.

On September 4, 2015, the Company moved to strike the second
amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek
leave of court to file a second amended pleading, and briefing is
complete with respect to the motion to strike.  Oral argument on
the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016.

On March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend.
The Company has opposed this motion to amend, and following a
hearing on April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to
strike and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement.
On May 13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint
motion wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs
could file a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion,
which the Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting
defendants' pending motion to strike the second amended pleading
and co-lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
pleading.  The Court also entered a briefing schedule for
defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to
file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs.

A third amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2016. On July 22,
2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to
stay the briefing schedule while they pursued mediation. As of the
filing date of this Form 10-Q, the Company cannot determine if a
loss is probable as a result of the class action lawsuit and
whether the outcome will have a material adverse effect on its
business and, as a result, the Company has not recorded any
amounts for a loss contingency.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Says Opportunities for Appeal Have Passed
----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company 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
all remaining opportunities for appeal in a Los Angeles class
action case have passed.

Companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced
litigation, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
product design, improper sales practices and similar claims.

The Company was a defendant in a purported class action,
McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance
Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v.
American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District,
entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales
Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles
Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and
similar claims.

The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
the Company.  On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the case
as a class action for settlement purposes only. A class member
filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit on February 28, 2014.

On February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the terms of the settlement agreement and
on April 6, 2016, the class member's subsequent request for a
rehearing en banc was denied. All remaining opportunities for
appeal have passed.

"We estimate our litigation liability in this matter to be $11.1
million based on our best estimate of probable loss. There can be
no assurance that any other pending or future litigation will not
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations," the Company said.

American Equity specializes in the sale of individual annuities
(primarily deferred annuities) and, to a lesser extent, it also
sells life insurance policies.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Therapeutics, 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 since October 1, 2015,
three purported securities class action lawsuits have been
commenced in the United States District Court for New Jersey,
naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for
migalastat.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for
purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during different periods,
all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It
is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and
also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as
defendants. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits
into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 11, 2016.
Defendants' response was due on August 25, 2016.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Silva" Case in Briefing Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action
lawsuit by Rachel Silva is in the briefing stage.

On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ("California Court") by Rachel Silva ("Silva") and Don
Hudson ("Hudson"), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life
Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA
Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene
Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM. The original
complaint in this action alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
1962(c) and (d).

The plaintiffs alleged that commencing in 2007 and continuing
thereafter, Aviva and its then management engaged in a scheme to,
among other things, falsely represent the financial strength of
and hide the true financial condition of Aviva by, among other
things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities to Aviva's
undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates, misvaluing assets,
and failing to make required disclosures to purchasers of
policies, and that after Athene Holding purchased all of the
outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October 2, 2013 the
scheme was "unwound and rewound" so as to continue, and that as a
result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity products issued
by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were damaged as a
result thereof. All defendants (except Aviva plc) (a) moved to
transfer this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa ("Iowa Court") and (b) moved to dismiss
this action. Aviva plc separately moved to dismiss the action for
lack of jurisdiction over it.

The California Court granted the motion to transfer to the Iowa
Court and denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff Hudson moved for leave to amend the complaint, which
motion was granted by the Iowa Court. The amended complaint
removed Silva as a named plaintiff and removed Aviva plc as a
defendant, but otherwise substantively makes the same or similar
allegations.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and
that motion is in the briefing stage. If the action is not
dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM (and the other
defendants) will deny the material allegations of the amended
complaint and will vigorously defend themselves against these
claims. Although neither Athene Asset Management nor AGM can
predict the ultimate outcome of this action, each believes that it
is without merit, and because this action is in its early stages,
no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at
this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Update on Lawsuits Over Fresh Market Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 following the March
14, 2016 announcement that The Fresh Market, Inc. ("TFM") had
entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated
with Apollo (the "TFM Merger Agreement"), five putative
shareholder class actions were filed in four courts (one in the
Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina; two in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware; one in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina; and one in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware).

Additionally, one individual action demanding inspection of books
and records was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware and a Petition for Appraisal of Stock was also filed in
the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. The first
purported class action, captioned Dolores Balint v. The Fresh
Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-CVS-4144, was filed on March
23, 2016 in the North Carolina Superior Court (the "Balint
Action"). The complaint named as defendants TFM, its officers and
directors and certain affiliates of AGM, Pomegranate Holdings,
Inc. ("Pomegranate Holdings") and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc.
("Pomegranate Merger Sub"). The Balint action was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on April 13, 2016.

The second purported class action, captioned Ross DeAmbrogio v.
The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00239-LPS, was
filed April 7, 2016 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM and its officers
and directors (the "DeAmbrogio Action"). The Plaintiff in the
DeAmbrogio Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses on June 29, 2016.

The third purported class action, captioned John Solak v. The
Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00249-SLR, was filed
April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and
directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and
Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Solak Action"). The Plaintiff
in the Solak Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses on June 28, 2016.

The fourth purported class action, captioned Ronald Jantz v. Ray
Berry, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-0307-CCE-JEP, was filed April 11,
2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina and named as defendants TFM and its officers and
directors (the "Jantz Action"). The Plaintiff in the Jantz Action
filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on July 8, 2016.

The fifth purported class action, captioned Bruce S. Sherman, et.
al. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 12205-VCG, was
filed April 14, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of
Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors,
AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. (the "Sherman Action"). The Sherman Action
alleges, among other things, that the TFM officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in
connection with their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger
Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price and by
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
The Sherman Action further alleges that TFM, AGM, Apollo
Management VIII, L.P., Pomegranate Holdings and Pomegranate Merger
Sub, aided and abetted in those alleged breaches.

The sixth action, an individual action captioned Elizabeth
Morrison v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12243-VCG, was filed
April 22, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and
names only TFM as a defendant (the "Morrison Action"). The
Morrison Action seeks only the right to inspect certain books and
records of TFM pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate
Code.

The seventh action, a Petition for Appraisal of Stock captioned
Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. and Brigade Leveraged Capital
Structures Fund, Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12372-
VCG, was filed May 23, 2016 and names only TFM as the respondent
(the "Hudson Bay Action"). The Hudson Bay Action was filed on
behalf of holders of 1,660,000 shares of common stock of TFM and
seeks a determination of the fair value of the shares of the
common stock of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware Corporate
Code. None of the courts in which these actions are pending has
yet set a schedule for resolving the cases on the merits.

Because each of these actions is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo
believes that each of these actions is without merit.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Remand Fully Briefed, Awaits Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 Plaintiff's April
18, 2016 remand motion was fully briefed as of May 27, 2016.

On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors
(including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings,
LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"),
which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and
two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common
stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015
secondary offering.

The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a
materially misleading registration statement for the secondary
offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's
2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed
to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation.

The two causes of action against the AP Entities are for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for
alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price.

On March 24, 2016, defendants removed the case to United States
District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiff's April 18,
2016 remand motion was fully briefed as of May 27, 2016. Because
this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Deadline to Amend Suit Extended Until Nov. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 in the case, In re
Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, the parties
are in the process of seeking an order extending until November 8,
2016, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated
complaint.

Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five
putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education
Group, Inc.  The actions were captioned as follows:  Casey v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-051605 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Feb. 25, 2016); Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., CV2016-003718 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2016); Wagner v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Mar. 9, 2016); Ladouceur v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., CV2016-002148 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2016); Simkhovich v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002339 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Mar. 23, 2016).

The  defendants include, among others, Apollo Education Group,
Inc. ("AEG"), members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Apollo
Investment Fund VIII, L.P., AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., which is
a subsidiary of funds affiliated with Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AGM, and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., which is a wholly
owned subsidiary of AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The complaints allege that AEG's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to AEG's stockholders by entering into a merger
agreement that provides for AEG to be acquired by AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc.  Plaintiffs claim
that AEG's directors engaged in a flawed sales process, agreed to
a price that does not adequately compensate AEG's stockholders,
and agreed to certain unfair deal protection terms in connection
with the merger agreement.

Two of the complaints further allege (1) that AEG's directors
breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement, and (2)
that the sales process was flawed because of certain alleged
conflicts with AEG's financial advisors.  All the complaints
allege that AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub,
Inc., aided and abetted the alleged breaches.  The complaints that
name as defendants AGM, and Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P.,
allege that those entities also aided and abetted the alleged
breaches.  No amount of damages is specified in any of the
complaints.

On April 12, 2016, the Court  consolidated all the actions under
the following caption:  In re Apollo Education Group, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct.).

The parties have informed the Court that they have entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
suit.  The settlement contemplated by the memorandum will provide
for the dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release of any
and all claims by the proposed class against Defendants.  The
settlement also will recognize that the pendency of the suit was a
factor in the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase the
price offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AEG's
common stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share.  The
settlement is contingent upon the consummation of the merger
agreement, Plaintiffs' taking confirmatory discovery, the
execution of definitive settlement papers, certification of the
proposed class, and court approval.  The current deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint or to
designate an operative complaint was August 10, 2016, but the
parties are in the process of seeking an order extending that
deadline until November 8, 2016.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Ninth Circuit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, 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 panel of the US
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has heard oral argument on
the appeal in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice.

"On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the
second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all
parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the
action with prejudice.

"On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

"On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate
brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October
24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead
plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed
his reply brief. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016.

"Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict
or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims."

Arena is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel,
small-molecule drugs across a range of therapeutic areas.


AUTOZONE PARTS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Deceptive Rewards Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY RUTH HUGHES and KEVIN SHENKMAN, individually, and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., a Nevada corporation, AUTOZONE, INC., a
Nevada corporation, AUTOZONE.COM, INC., a corporate entity of
unknown origin; and DOES 1-20, the Defendant, Case No. BC631080
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover injunctive
relief, damages, including punitive damages, civil penalties,
costs and disgorgement to remedy AutoZone's ill-begotten gains
through its deceptive "rewards" program.

AutoZone allegedly represented that under its rewards program, its
customers would receive a "reward credit" for each purchase they
made over $20 and that after they accumulated five such credits,
they would receive "a $20 Reward" which they could use as a cash
equivalent at AutoZone.

However, after receiving Plaintiffs' money, AutoZone unilaterally
changed its rewards program to make the credits Plaintiffs had
already paid money to acquire "expire" after twelve months and any
"$20 Reward" they might accrue expire after three months.

AutoZone is an auto parts retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Bonder, Esq.
          Ryan M. Lapine, Esq.
          ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN LLP
          232 North Canon Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210-5302
          Telephone: (310) 858 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 860 2430
          E-mail:tbonder@rmslaw.com
                 rlapine@rmsiaw.com

               - and -

          WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP
          Seth Yohalem, Esq.
          954 W. Washington Blvd., Suite 720
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 278 3156
          Facsimile: (312) 690 4641


BANCORP INC: $17.5 Million Class Action Settlement Reached
----------------------------------------------------------
The Bancorp, 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 and all
other individually-named defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with respect to the consolidated class
action.

On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint captioned
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.   A
consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed
before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead
Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System under the caption of In Re The
Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-0952 (SLR).

On October 26, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul Frenkiel, Frank M.
Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, which alleges that during a class
period beginning January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had wrongfully extended
and modified problem loans and under-reserved for loan losses due
to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations and credit practices
were in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and (iii) as a
result, Bancorp's financial statements, press releases and public
statements were materially false and misleading during the
relevant period.

The amended consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a
result, the price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially
inflated and fell once the defendants' misstatements and omissions
were revealed, causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other
members of the class.  The complaint asks for an unspecified
amount of damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees. This litigation is in its preliminary stages.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 23, 2015.  Oral argument on the defendants'
motion was held on January 29, 2016 and a court ruling on the
motion has been pending.

"On July 27, 2016, we and all other individually-named defendants
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (Settlement
Agreement) with respect to the consolidated class action.  Under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, we will pay $17.5 million
to the plaintiffs as full and complete settlement of the
litigation.  All amounts paid by us will be fully funded by the
Company's insurance carriers.  All terms of the Settlement
Agreement are subject to court approval," the Company said.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Class Action in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, 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 Berkshire Hills and
Berkshire Bank were served on April 28, 2016, with a complaint
filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was filed by an
individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to have filed the
complaint on behalf of a purported class of Berkshire Bank
depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other
matters. On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add
purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential,
statutory, and punitive damages. Berkshire Hills and Berkshire
Bank deny the allegations contained in the complaint and are
vigorously defending this lawsuit.


BISTRO MARKETPLACE: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO GUZMAN, JAVIER SOTO, and DIEGO VIDAL, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BISTRO
MARKETPLACE 17 INC. (d/b/a CAFE BISTRO), PETER PARK, and WON
SUN CHUN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06530 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as food preparers,
porters, dishwashers, and deli workers. They allegedly worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 that they worked.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at
312 W. 34th Street, New York, New York 10018 under the name "Cafe
Bistro".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620


BMO HARRIS: "Shepard" Suit Seeks Back Wages, Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Alfrieda Shepard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. and KForce
Flexible Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08288 (N.D.
Ill., August 23, 2016), seeks all back wages due, overtime,
statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Shepard works as a call center agent of BMO Harris Bank through
Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC. She claims to be denied overtime
pay for their pre-shift work and occasional missed breaks.

BMO Harris is a bank based in Chicago, Illinois with branches in
the states of Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, Missouri, Minnesota,
Kansas, Florida and Wisconsin.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 201-0575

            - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726-3400


BOBBY ALVIN RISHER: "Maldonado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Beatrice Maldonado, Lisbeth Estrada and Hermelindo Chilel,
Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Bobby Alvin Risher, Individually and d/b/a The
Bridge, Buddy Mann and Mann's Classic Innovations, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02572, (S.D. Tex., August 23, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and attorney's fees owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mann's Classic Innovations is a re-modeling contractor based in
Terrell, Texas.

Risher and Mann constitute a joint enterprise, which jointly
employed Plaintiffs working on construction projects together.

Maldonado and Estrada were employed by the Defendants as sheetrock
installers while Chilel worked as a framer. They claim to be
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:


      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


BROOKLAND MANOR: 150 Families File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
estimating that a redevelopment project will displace nearly 150
low-income families in northeast D.C., residents brought a federal
class action in Washington to protect their homes.

The controversy stems from the plan to overhaul Brookland Manor
Apartments, a 20-acre apartment complex at the intersection of
Rhode Island and Montana Avenues that has housed D.C. families for
decades.

According to a complaint filed August 25, Brookland Manor has
offered subsidized housing under the federal Section 8 program
since 1977, and less than 10 percent of the complex's 535
apartments are rented at full, market-rate without public
assistance.

Adriann Borum and Lorretta Holloman, two of the plaintiffs behind
the lawsuit, say that is set to change under a proposed
redevelopment filed with the local zoning board in 2014 by Mid-
City Financial Corp.

Along with property manager Brentwood Village, Mid-City is
planning to expand Brookland Manor to 1,760 units, of which 1,646
will be apartments.

One critical change, the complaint says, is that "the redeveloped
property would have zero four- or five-bedroom apartment units."

Borum and Holloman both rent four-bedroom apartments -- just like
the 116 households total at Brookland Manor residing in four- and
five-bedroom apartment units, as of June 2015, according to the
complaint.

"They live in their apartments with their minor children or with
their minor children and extended family members, and these
larger-size apartments are necessary to accommodate their
families," the complaint states.

Brookland Manor has 75 three-bedroom units currently, but the
redeveloped property will have just 64.

Borum and Holloman say the message is clear: large families are
"not consistent with the creation of a vibrant new community."

"Defendants have publicly stated that they will not build four- or
five-bedroom apartment units in the redeveloped property because
defendants believe that allowing large families to reside in large
units at apartment complexes is unsuitable for such families, has
an 'adverse' impact on residential quality of life, and is
inconsistent with the new community defendants seek to create,"
the complaint states.

Facing homelessness, the women are accusing the developers of
discriminating against them on the basis of familial status.

Catherine Cone, a staff attorney with Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, says the
redevelopment of Brookland Manor is indicative of other
redevelopment efforts in the city to push out long time residents,
and construct properties to bring new, more affluent residents
into gentrified areas.

In this instance, the redevelopment project will have a disparate
impact on larger families, Cone said in an interview.

"Generally what we think this case shows is that not only can
redevelopment that goes unchecked lead to displacement of longtime
residents, it can also specifically affect families," Cone said.

According to the complaint, Brookland Manor is among the only
affordable residences in the northeastern part of the city that
offers larger units for bigger families. D.C. housing codes
stipulate that large families cannot reside in smaller units. Many
of the families at Brookland Manor require at least a three-
bedroom apartment to be in compliance, the complaint states.

Though Mid-City refused to comment on the pending litigation, an
article on its website says the redeveloped complex, which will
span eight blocks, will be "mixed income." Affordable housing will
make up 20 percent of the units, and the new property will include
multifamily buildings, the article says.

Mid-City's founder, the late Eugene F. Ford Sr., has been
memorialized as a champion of affordable housing.

According to the D.C. Zoning Commission's first-stage approval of
the plan, the redevelopment will have a minimal impact on current
residents.

"Mr. Meers stated that the applicant's research of the families
that are currently living in the four and five-bedroom units
resulted in the finding that all but 13 of the existing four and
five-bedroom households can be housed in smaller units based on
prevailing HUD occupancy standards," the document says,
referencing Michael Meers, Mid-City's vice president. "Mr. Meers
stated that the Applicant would meet with those 13 families in
order to ensure that they will be reasonably accommodated into the
new Brentwood Village project."

But the residents who filed the complaint disagree with that
assessment.

"Under the current redevelopment plan, all 183 households
currently living in three, four, or five-bedroom apartments at
Brookland Manor would be forced to vie for 64 three-bedroom units
at the redeveloped property," the complaint alleges, adding that
the remaining units will not be affordable.

Cone says the redevelopment of Brookland Manor is reflective of a
general shortage of affordable housing in the district -- units
with more than three bedrooms are in short supply.

A 2015 Urban Institute report on D.C. housing that Cone referenced
shows that only 21 percent of housing units in the district are
three bedrooms. Meanwhile, only 8 percent have four bedrooms,
while only 4 percent have five or more bedrooms.

"Those are pretty stark numbers," Cone said.

Cone noted that some Brookland Manor families have already been
displaced from their original units, while other families have
been broken up or have already moved off of the property.

Other Brookland Manor residents have begun looking for alternative
housing, but have found few units available, many of them in Wards
7 and 8, the poorest and most segregated parts of the city, she
said.

Others are looking for housing in Maryland in Prince George's
County, which raises a host of additional concerns, Cone added.
Those forced to move outside of the district will be cut off from
community support systems - access to doctors, schools and
churches, she said.

The complaint goes into detail about how the redevelopment will
affect Borum, a mom of five who has lived in Brookland Manor for
25 years. Borum's younger children attend school nearby, and she
lives within walking distance of her job. She also says she relies
on her community church for religious and communal support, and
that her children enjoy recreational activities and programs at a
neighborhood recreation center.

"Ms. Borum will have an extremely difficult time finding an
adequately sized apartment in D.C. for her family because of the
scarcity of affordable housing of her unit type," the complaint
states.

When it comes to households like Borum's, the Urban Institute
report found that families of five or more are at higher risk for
homelessness. Just 1 percent to 2 percent of families with four or
less family members are at risk for homelessness, compared with 6
percent of large households.

"Mid-City's proposed redevelopment disproportionately impacts
families and exacerbates the affordable housing and homelessness
crises in the district and threatens the wellbeing of the city's
most vulnerable populations," according to a statement about the
lawsuit from Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs.

Attorneys from Covington & Burling joined the Washington Lawyers'
Committee in filing the class action against Mid-City, Brentwood
Village LLC, Brentwood Associates LP and Edgewood Management Corp.

Along with the individual residents, Organizing Neighborhood
Equity in Shaw and the District of Columbia joined the class
action as a lead plaintiff.

They allege violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the
District of Columbia Human Rights Act.


BURGER KING: Roman Seeks Final Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RONALD JOSEPH TORRES ROMAN, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BURGER KING CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-20455-KMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for final class
certification of:

     "all persons currently employed by Burger King or previously
     employed by Burger King within the three years preceding the
     filing of this lawsuit in the position of Sales, Profit and
     Operations Coach who elect to opt-in to the action."

Approximately 130 former sales, profit and operations coaches
filed written consents to join the lawsuit.

The Eleventh Circuit has endorsed a two-step certification process
for collective actions, whereby the court conditionally certifies
the class early in the litigation, then makes a final
determination of whether the class members are similarly situated
after the Parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery,
the Plaintiff's lawyers said, citing Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life
Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001).

On June 2, 2015, the Court conditionally certified the class.
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order confirming its decision
to certify this collective action, and to finally certify the
collective action for trial.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LAW GROUP PA
          1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 639 9366
          E-Mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


CARRIER IQ: $9MM Settlement in Privacy Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Carrier IQ will pay $9 million to settle claims that it
collected personal information from smartphone users without their
permission before sending it to Sprint, AT&T and other companies.

Carrier IQ and several telecoms were hit in 2011 with a raft of
consumer privacy class actions alleging Carrier used a device
called IQRD to access smartphones while hiding its presence and
subverting standard operating system functions or other
applications.

Plaintiffs said the software allowed Carrier IQ to log users'
keystrokes, including their private text messages and web
searches, in violation of federal and state wiretap laws.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on Thursday granted final approval
of the $9 million settlement and $2.25 million in attorneys' fees
after throwing it in limbo in July over questions about how many
people knew they were eligible for an award.

However, Chen denied approval of incentive awards to named
plaintiffs who spent less than 26 hours on the case, lowering the
award to $3,000 from the requested $5,000.

Once attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards are subtracted
from the settlement fund, an estimated $5.9 million will remain
for distribution to about 42,000 class members, according to an
order Chen issued. It's estimated that each member will receive
between $138.35 and $149.28.

"The number of objections and opt-outs is small, which indicates
that the class largely supports the settlement," Chen said in his
12-page ruling. "While the number of claims is also small, this
cannot be said to be the result of inadequate notice."

In deferring to grant final approval in July, Chen ordered class
counsel to provide more information about the "reach" of the class
notice, citing the low number of claims submitted by class members
as a potential indicator that not enough people learned about the
settlement and their eligibility for an award during the notice
period.

With a response rate of 0.14 percent, Chen said the reach may have
been insufficient. He asked for more information about how people
were reached through both paper publications and the Internet, as
well as what additional notice could be done and how much it would
cost.

In response, plaintiffs' counsel provided a declaration from
settlement administrator Alan Vasquez explaining that the
publication notice placed in USA Today and People magazine, as
well as a banner advertisement notice, likely reached 81 percent
of the class.

"In our experience, the claims rate in this settlement is
consistent with many other settlement administrations with similar
class characteristics," Vasquez said in his declaration.

Based on Vasquez's declaration, Chen found that "a substantial
portion of the settlement class were likely exposed to the multi-
faceted notice provided by the administrator."

The plaintiffs were represented by Daniel Warshaw with Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw in Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Carrier IQ was represented by Tyler Newby of Fenwick & West in San
Francisco.

Neither attorney could be reached for comment on Friday afternoon.

The case is captioned, IN RE CARRIER IQ, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY
LITIGATION., Case No. 12-md-02330-EMC (N.D. Cal.).


CCB CREDIT: "Schmitz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT SCHMITZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CCB
CREDIT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1125 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class.
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

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.  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).

As this motion to certify a class 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 Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, 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
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group, 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 oral
argument on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit was to be
held August 17, 2016.

On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine
Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also
named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony
Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The
complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014,
through April 7, 2015, the Company made material
misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The
complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all
defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the
individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of
the damages sought.

On June 3, 2015, defendants were served.  On June 29, 2015, the
Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are
not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action
until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed. The
deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015. On that date, one
motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative
plaintiff Michelle Jackson. On August 3, 2015, having received no
opposition, the Court appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the
Rosen Law Firm as class counsel. As stipulated among the parties,
Jackson filed an amended class action complaint on September 17,
2015. On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff submitted a response on March 1, 2016 and oral argument
on the motion to dismiss took place on April 20, 2016. The
decision on the motion to dismiss is pending as of the filing date
of this Form 10-Q. Discovery will be stayed pending the decision
on the motion to dismiss.

The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and
entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are
affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the
Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional
defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does
not assert any claims against Mr. Liu.

On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was argued on April 20, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On June 6, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on June 30, 2016,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion
was to be held August 17, 2016.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with
patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company
in the matter. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
to estimate the range of potential loss.

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. is a biomedicine company,
principally engaged in the development of new treatments for
cancerous and degenerative diseases utilizing proprietary cell-
based technologies.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement of Merger Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. 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 settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to the merger of Charter
Communications, Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. remains subject to
approval of the New York Supreme Court.

On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as
CCH I, LLC, the "Company" or "Charter") completed its previously
reported merger transactions among the Company, Time Warner Cable
Inc. ("Legacy TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy
Charter"), and certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC
Transaction"). Also on May 18, 2016, the Company completed its
previously reported acquisition of Bright House Networks, LLC
("Legacy Bright House") from Advance/Newhouse Partnership (the
"Bright House Transaction," and, together with the TWC
Transaction, the "Transactions"). As a result of the Transactions,
the Company became the new public parent company that holds the
combined operations of Legacy Charter, Legacy TWC and Legacy
Bright House and was renamed Charter Communications, Inc.

In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast and Legacy TWC of
their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New
York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and
directors.  Later five similar class actions were consolidated
with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The NY Actions were settled
in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following
the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015.

In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge.
Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the
members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders
during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the
merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and
equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York
Supreme Court. In the event that the New York Supreme Court does
not approve the settlement, the defendants intend to vigorously
defend against any further litigation.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Sciabacucchi Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. 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's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit by Matthew Sciabacucchi remains
pending.

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew
Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging
the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband
announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the
"Transactions"). The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty
Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New
Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly
benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter
shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions.  Plaintiff
requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter
stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on
the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions.

Charter has filed a motion to dismiss this litigation. Charter
denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses,
and intends to vigorously defend this suit.


CITIBANK: "Cain" Class Removed Suit to District Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Clifford Cain, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A.,
Case No. C-02-CV-16-02160, was removed from the Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County to the U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-02930-ELH to the proceeding.

Citibank, N.A. operates a financial services company headquartered
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Holland, Esq.
      THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM PC
      PO Box 6268
      Annapolis, MD 21401-0268
      Telephone: (410) 280-6133
      Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
      E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Edward Hutchinson Robbins Jr., Esq.
      Zachary Schultz, Esq.
      MILES AND STOCKBRIDGE PC
      100 Light St
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 385-3408
      Facsimile: (410) 698-4518
      E-mail: erobbins@milesstockbridge.com
              zschultz@milesstockbridge.com


CITY OF HOPE: "Seper" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN A. SEPER on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC630925 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016),
seeks to recover wages for workdays the Defendants failed to
provide legally compliant meal periods; wages for workdays
the Defendants failed to provide third rest periods when employees
worked over 10 hours in a day; statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate and complete wage statements; waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages; applicable civil
penalties; and injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Labor Code.

City of Hope is a private, not-for-profit clinical research
center, hospital and graduate medical school located in Duarte,
California, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite.200
          Beverly Hills, CA 902Tl
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Loveland Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PETER LOVELAND, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1124 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class and
appoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and appoint Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the class certification
motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed,
and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules'
automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a
brief and supporting documents in support of the motion.

According to the Plaintiff, 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.  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).

As this motion to certify a class 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 Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zAmBhty1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, 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
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


COOK CITY, IL: Sept. 22 Hearing on Williams' Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 23, 2016, in the case
captioned Walter Williams, et al. v. Sheriff of Cook County, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class entered and continued
      to September 22, 2016;

   -- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's
      application for preliminary injunction and the Defendant's
      motion to reconsider and strike preliminary injunction
      hearing date are denied as moot;

   -- the August 24, 2016 preliminary injunction hearing is
      stricken;

   -- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's
      conditional motion to add additional plaintiff is granted;

   -- Defendants will answer or otherwise plead to the amended
      complaint by September 13, 2016; and

   -- status hearing set for September 22, 2016, will stand.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=piO7xbBE


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Faces "Grae" Securities Lawsuit in Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DAMON
T. HINIGER, and DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD J. MULLENGER, Case No.
3:16-cv-02267 (M.D. Tenn., August 23, 2016), is a securities class
action on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired CCA
securities between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016, both
dates inclusive.

Corrections Corporation of America, together with its
subsidiaries, owns and operates privatized correctional and
detention facilities in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
     Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
     40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
     P. O. Box 150734
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: 615.248.2828
     Fax: 866.816.4116
     E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
             Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: 1-800-977-7401
     Fax: 1-800-536-0065
     E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
             brian@goldberglawpc.com


COUNTRY CLUB OF STOW: Sued Over Unredeemable Cash Card
------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COUNTRY CLUB OF STOW, INC., and STOW
FOOD SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2016-2381 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover actual and/or
statutory damages, triple damages, and attorney fees.

On August 23, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a gift card (the Gift
Card) for $75.00 from the Defendants for use of future goods and
services. The expiration date of the Gift Card was not clearly
printed on the Gift Card or the sales receipt. The Gift Card
states that "additional value may be added to this card at any
time" and any "unused value remains on card and cannot be redeemed
for cash." The Defendants allegedly refused to accept the gift
card or provide cash reimbursement in the spring of 2016.

Founded in 1987, Country Club of Stow Inc. is a small organization
in the public golf courses industry located in Stow,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nick Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          1 State Street, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 857 225 2743
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Excess Appraised Value
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN TOWER II, L.P. (BRYAN TOWER), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-10119
(D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover monetary relief of
$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief
(correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's
property).

In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District
had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for
use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
allegedly appraised the value of the Property at an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The complaint says the value placed on the Property represents a
value in excess of the fair market value. The appraised value is
unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption,
application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and
unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Incorrect Valuation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN B. SCHORSCH, JR., AND KIRSTEN SCHORSCH, the Plaintiffs, v.
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
10113 (D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2016), asks the Court to fix the
appraised value of the Plaintiffs' Property in accordance with the
requirement of law pursuant to the Texas Property Tax Code.

According to the complaint, the appraised value of the Property
exceeds the market value of the Property as of January 1, of the
tax year at issue. The appraised value is unequal compared to
other properties similarly situated, and exceeds the median value
of other similarly situated property by at least 10%. The levying
of a tax on the Property based on the incorrect valuation is
excessive and will cause injury to the Plaintiffs.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John B. Schorsch, Jr.
          MORRIS & SCHORSCH, PC
          8080 N. Central Expressway Suite 1300
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 888 3324
          Facsimile: (214) 888 3327
          E-mail: jschorsch@mstxlaw.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Paramount Suit Alleges Misappraisal
---------------------------------------------------
Paramount Jr, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10320, (S.D. Tex., August 23,
2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for
violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff owns The Resort at Jefferson Ridge Apartments located at
5301N MacArthur Blvd in Irving, Dallas County, Texas.

Plaintiff alleges that the Appraisal District had made an
appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the
relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad
valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value
of the Property at $32,679,170, an amount in excess of the
appraised value required by law.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: 3662 Camp Wisdom Suit Alleges Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
3662 Camp Wisdom, LLC d/b/a Southwest Center Mall, Plaintiff, v.
Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
10349, (S.D. Tex., August 8, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised
value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other
and further relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and
improvements known as the Southwest Center Mall located at 3662 W.
Camp Wisdom Road in Dallas County, Texas.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the value placed on the property by the District represents a
value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: HMK Ltd. Seeks Review of Protest Valuation Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HMK LTD., HANNA E. KHRAISH and KHRAISH H. KHRAISH, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No. DC-16-10308 (In The District
Court Dallas County, August 23, 2016), seeks de novo review of the
decision and wrongful denial of protest valuation issued by the
Appraisal Review Board.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles W. McGarry, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES MCGARRY
     701 Commerce Street, Suite 400
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 748-0800
     Fax: (214) 748-9449
     E-mail: cmcgarry@ix.netcom.com


DANISCO USA: Class Certification Bid in "Rixen" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Frederick J. Kapala entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Christopher E. Rixen, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Danisco
USA Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-50283 (N.D.
Ill.), granting the joint motion for approval of settlement
agreements, dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim, and denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

The order is based on a report and recommendation (R&R) from the
magistrate judge recommending that the court grant the joint
motion to approve the settlement agreements and that the pending
motion for class certification be denied as moot.

The parties had an opportunity to object to the R&R by August 19,
2016. No objection has been received.

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


DIMITRI CONSTRUCTION: Soto Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FRANCISCO MARADIAGA SOTO, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. DIMITRI CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORP., and
RICARDO A DIMITRI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23564-FAM
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover double damages and
reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants have allegedly employed several other similarly
situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime
and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly from the filing of the complaint back three years.

Dimitri Construction provides home/office interiors finishing,
furnishing and remodeling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIRECTV LLC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT, Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Jones v. DirecTV LLC, Multiband Corporation and Simplified
Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02108 (N.D. Ohio,
August 23, 2016), seeks applicable statutory minimum wages,
overtime pay, commissions, compensatory damages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio State Constitution.

DirecTV is a satellite television provider and installs and
repairs equipment in the homes of many of its subscribers though
contractors called Home Services Providers such as Multiband and
Simplified Solutions. Plaintiff worked for these contractors as a
technician.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Superior Building
      815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (440) 498-9100
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

             - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Tel: (440) 973-9000
      Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com


EAST PENN: "Mcevoy" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY MCEVOY, 7929 Boyertown Pike, Boyertown, PA 19512,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EAST PENN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, P.O. 147, Deka
Road, Lyon Station, PA 19536, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-
04542-JLS (E.D. Penn., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover
compensation and overtime compensation pursuant to the
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant violated the Family
and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant where she
worked as an Industrial Occupational Health Nurse. During the
course of her employment, the Plaintiff did not have her hours of
work accurately tracked and recorded by the Defendant, and also
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not properly
compensated for her work/or was not paid overtime compensation as
required by the FLSA.

East Penn is a private company and the world's largest single-
site, lead-acid battery facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MEGAN LINSLEY DAVIS, Esq.
     MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC
     1628 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD.
     PHILADELPHIA, PA  19103
     PHONE: (267) 273 - 1054
     FAX: (215) 525 - 0210


ENCOMPASS SERVICES: "McDonald" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy McDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Encompass Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01203 (W.D. Pa., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the collective
action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, Massachusetts Labor Law and the Massachusetts
Wage Act.

Encompass provides route reconnaissance, survey, map generation,
well package development, title research, and other services for
the oil and gas industry. Randy McDonald worked for Defendant
performing surveying work surrounding the pre-construction of
pipelines in the oilfield. He claims to have never received
overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: 412-766-1455
      Fax: 412-766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

             - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet St.
     Houston, TX 77005
     Tel: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
            litkin@fibichlaw.com
            adunlap@fibichlaw.com
            jbresler@fibichlaw.com


ENVESTNET INC: $200,000 Agreement on Fees and Expenses Reached
--------------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet, 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 during the second
quarter of 2016, the parties reached an agreement with respect to
fees and expenses in the amount of $200,000, and on July 13, 2016
the Court entered a Stipulation and Order directing payment of the
settlement amount to plaintiffs' counsel.

Envestnet Inc. ("Envestnet"), Yale Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
Yodlee Inc. ("Yodlee"), and all members of Yodlee's board of
directors at the time of Yodlee's acquisition (the "Acquisition")
by Envestnet were named as defendants in two putative class
actions challenging the Acquisition. The suits, captioned Suman
Inala v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11461) (filed September 2,
2015 and amended on October 14, 2015) and Guillaume Wieland-Paquet
v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11611) (filed October 14, 2015),
were pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Yodlee
directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell
Yodlee through a conflicted process and by failing to ensure that
Yodlee's stockholders received adequate and fair value for their
shares.  The complaints also alleged that the Form S-4
Registration Statement filed by Envestnet, which contained
Yodlee's proxy statement, failed to disclose material information
to Yodlee's stockholder.  The complaints also alleged that
Envestnet and Merger Sub aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought as relief, among other
things, an injunction against the merger, rescission of the Merger
Agreement to the extent it was already implemented, an award of
damages and attorneys' fees.

On October 16, 2015, plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings
and discovery, so as to be in a position to seek injunctive relief
preventing Yodlee's shareholders from voting on the proposed
Merger. On October 28, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motion
and on November 19, 2015, the Merger was completed.  On March 15,
2016, Plaintiffs advised the Court that they intended to
voluntarily dismiss the suits and to seek an as yet unspecified
award of fees for purportedly compelling Yodlee to supplement its
proxy statement in order to moot certain of plaintiffs' claims.

On May 17, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court")
entered a Stipulation and Proposed Order Concerning Voluntary
Dismissal of the Action and Plaintiffs' Anticipated Application
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The Court dismissed the Actions
and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining
any application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses by the plaintiffs and their counsel, who contend that
supplemental proxy materials filed by Yodlee on October 26, 2015
contained supplemental disclosures of material fact that mooted
plaintiffs' disclosure claims.

During the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an
agreement with respect to such fees and expenses in the amount of
$200,000 (the "settlement amount"), and on July 13, 2016 the Court
entered a Stipulation and Order directing payment of the
settlement amount to plaintiffs' counsel (the "Order"). The
Company has denied any wrongdoing, and agreed to pay the
settlement amount to avoid incurring further costs of litigation.
The Company agreed to pay the settlement amount within 10 business
days after the entry of the Order, which the Company did. The
Court did not pass on the amount of the settlement.

Any stockholder seeking additional information about this matter
should contact W. Scott Holleman, counsel for plaintiffs, at
ScottH@johnsonandweaver.com or (212) 802-1486, or Jonathan Medow,
counsel for Envestnet, at jmedow@mayerbrown.com or (312) 701-7060.

On November 19, 2015, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), dated August 10, 2015, among Yodlee, the
Company and Yale Merger Corp. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Envestnet, Merger Sub was merged (the "Merger") with
and into Yodlee with Yodlee continuing as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Envestnet.

Yodlee, operating as Envestnet | Yodlee, is a data aggregation and
data analytics platform powering dynamic, cloud-based innovation
for digital financial services. Yodlee powers digital financial
solutions for over 22 million paid subscribers and over 1,000
financial institutions, financial technology innovators and
financial advisory firms. Founded in 1999, the company has built a
network of over 15,000 data sources and been awarded 78 patents.


FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Waterford Complaint Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
FBR & CO. 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 ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to
to amend their complaint a third time is pending.

On March 30, 2016, the putative class action lawsuit of Waterford
Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management
Corp. et al., pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, was dismissed in its entirety. The
Court ruled that the operative amended complaint, filed on January
23, 2015, failed to allege any material misstatements. As
previously disclosed, the Second Amended Complaint asserted claims
against all the underwriters, including FBRCM, under Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act in connection with offerings in
September and December 2013.

Plaintiffs have requested that the court grant them permission to
amend their complaint a third time.  Briefing on that motion is
complete as of June 23, 2016 and a ruling is pending.  Regional
Management continues to indemnify all of the underwriters,
including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement.


FBR & CO: Defendants Opposing Remand of Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
FBR & CO. 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 plaintiffs in class action
lawsuits are currently seeking to remand to Tennessee state court;
defendants are vigorously opposing the remand.

In November 2015, MLV & Co. LLC was named a defendant in two
putative class action lawsuits alleging substantially identical
claims against the officers and directors and underwriters of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"). The lawsuits, styled
Goldberg v. Miller et al., and Gaynor v. Miller et al., are
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, and allege claims under Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration
statement and prospectuses issued in connection with 6 offerings
(February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26;
2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with
an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. Although MLV is
contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection
with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and
this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity
that MLV receives from Miller.

The plaintiffs are currently seeking to remand to Tennessee state
court; defendants are vigorously opposing the remand.

A subsequent complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on May 12, 2016.

The lawsuit, styled Hull v. Miller et al., alleges identical
claims to the previously filed complaints under Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act against eight of the same underwriters,
including MLV, and the officers and directors of Miller.


FCA US: Faltermeier Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Mr. David
Faltermeier asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all current owners of a Model Year 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty
     vehicle or a Model Year 1993-1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee
     vehicle that was not equipped with a fuel tank shield/skid
     plate at the time of purchase, who purchased the vehicle in
     the State of Missouri for personal, family or household
     purposes at any time from June 4, 2013 to the present."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPTRF4Kd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
          Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
          David L. Heinemann MO, Esq.
          Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
          SHANK & MOORE, LLC
          1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100
          Mission Woods, KS 66205
          Telephone: (816) 471 0909
          Facsimile: (816) 471 3888
          E-mail: chriss@shankmoore.com
                  davidh@shankmoore.com
                  sjm@shankmoore.com


FERRELLGAS: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Damages Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Morgan-Larson, LLC, Johnson Auto Electric, Inc., Speed
Stop 32, Inc., and Yocum Oil Company, Inc. took an appeal from the
district court's dismissal of their claims for damages in their
action against Defendants Ferrellgas and AmeriGas under Section 1
of the Sherman Act, see 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.

The district court determined that Plaintiffs' claims are barred
by the statute of limitations.  The court concluded that none of
the tolling theories advanced by Plaintiffs were sufficient to
adjust or toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the
district court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims for damages.

Plaintiffs timely appealed. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the
district court erred in failing to find that the continuing
violations theory, which has the effect of restarting the
limitations period, prevented the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims.
No other issues are raised on appeal.

On Aug. 25, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Courthouse News Service reported that it is too late, the Eighth
Circuit agreed, for consumers to seek damages from propane-tank
distributors Ferrellgas and AmeriGas over price-fixing that
already resulted in settlements with the Federal Trade Commission
and a prior class action in St. Louis.


FIFTH STREET: $14MM Deal Subject to Additional Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance Corp. 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 the FSC
Class-Action Lawsuits have not yet filed the settlement agreement
with the court.  The deal is subject to discovery and court
approval.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative
securities class-action lawsuits. The first lawsuit was filed on
October 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall,
Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall
Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed
on October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v.
Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The
case was later transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, where it is pending as Case No.
16-cv-00088-LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK. The defendants
in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman,
Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Richard
Petrocelli, the Company and Fifth Street Asset Management Inc.
("FSAM").

The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased our common stock between July 7, 2014, and
February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms
that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme
designed to artificially inflate the true value of the Company's
investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase
FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as our asset manager and
investment adviser. For example, the lawsuits allege that the
Company improperly delayed the write-down of at least three of its
investments until the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014,
after FSAM had conducted its IPO in October 2014, even though the
Company purportedly should have taken the write-down before FSAM's
IPO. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount
of damages being sought in any of the actions.

On February 1, 2016, the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and the law firm of
Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its
consolidated complaint on April 1, 2016. The consolidated
complaint alleges claims similar to those pled in the original
complaints on behalf of the same putative class.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 31,
2016.  After defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the parties
engaged in a mediation to explore the possible settlement of the
action.

Following the mediation, the parties entered into an agreement to
settle the case for $14,050,000 to a settlement class consisting
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from July 7, 2014 through February 6, 2015.  Approximately
99% of the settlement amount will be paid from insurance coverage.
The proposed settlement is subject to plaintiff's completion of
additional discovery and approval by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York after notice has been
sent to the settlement class. The parties have not yet filed the
settlement agreement with the court.


FIFTH STREET: Hearing on "Mootness Fee" Held
--------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance Corp. 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 was to hear
argument on plaintiff's motion for "mootness fee" on August 23,
2016.

On January 29, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et. al. was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is
captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et al., C.A. No.
11947-VCG. The defendants in the case are Bernard D. Berman, James
Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P.
Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens,
Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, FSAM, the Company and
Fifth Street Holdings L.P.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by, among other things,
issuing an incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement
that purportedly attempted to mislead our stockholders into voting
against proposals to be presented by another shareholder
(RiverNorth Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection
with the Company's 2016 annual meeting.

The competing shareholder proposals had sought to elect three
director nominees to our Board of Directors and to terminate the
investment advisory agreement with Fifth Street Management LLC.
The complaint also charged that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by perpetuating and failing to terminate
the investment advisory agreement and by seeking to entrench
themselves as directors and have Fifth Street Management LLC
remain in place.

The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing
the Company and its Board of Directors from soliciting proxies for
the 2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures were issued;
a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by refusing to terminate the investment advisory agreement and by
keeping the Company's Board of Directors and Fifth Street
Management LLC in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased
by the Company after the record date of the 2016 annual meeting
would not be considered outstanding shares for purposes of the
Company's stockholder approvals sought at the annual meeting; and
awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements. The plaintiff moved
for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings
and moved to dismiss the case. The Company also filed another
amendment to the preliminary proxy statement, making additional
disclosures relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth.

On February 16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that
the basis for his injunction motion had become moot and that he
was withdrawing his motions for a preliminary injunction and
expedited proceedings. On February 18, 2016, the Company announced
that it had entered into an agreement with RiverNorth Capital
Management pursuant to which RiverNorth would withdraw its
competing proxy solicitation. Plaintiff later informed the court
that his case has become moot, and he moved for a "mootness fee."
The court was to hear argument on plaintiff's motion on August 23,
2016.


FORD MOTOR: Cars Stall or Suddenly Decelerate, Class Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Santa Ana, Calif., claims Ford vehicles with a Delphi Gen 6
electronic throttle body in model years 2011 to 2015 have a
dangerous defect that makes them stall or suddenly decelerate.


FOREVER 21: Faces "Patterson" Class Suit in District New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Forever 21, Inc.
and Does 1-10, inclusive.

The case is captioned Tifany Patterson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Forever 21, Inc. and Does 1-
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-05087-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., August 19,
2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
      CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
      811 Sixteenth Avenue
      Belmar, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 443-0333
      Facsimile: (732) 894-9647
      E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com

GENERAL NUTRITION: Bid to Certify Class in "Howes" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case
styled Katherine Howes, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02168 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied as moot in light of the dismissal of the
Defendants in the Howes' action.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NTLE8KSl


GOOGLE INC: Fillekes Seeks Certification of Class in "Heath" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Fillekes, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled
ROBERT HEATH, and CHERYL FILLEKES, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-01824-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
moves the Court to conditionally certify an opt-in Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action of certain applicants age 40 and
older, who allegedly were discriminated against by Google in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Ms. Fillekes asks that the Court conditionally certify this class:

     All individuals who interviewed in-person for any Software
     Engineer ("SWE"), Site Reliability Engineer ("SRE"), or
     Systems Engineer ("SysEng") position with Google in the
     United States during the time period from August 13, 2010
     through the present; were age 40 or older at the time of the
     interview; and were refused employment by Google.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 10, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U1aO2hYA

Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes is represented by:

          Daniel L. Low, Esq.
          Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com
                  dkotchen@kotchen.com


GREENE'S ENERGY: "Matte" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
DONNIE MATTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a GEG
CONSULTANTS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01258-DSC (W.D.
Penn., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

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, PC
          3634 California Ave.,
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212


HERC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Fully Briefed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herc 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 Company and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth amended
complaint in the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation, is now fully briefed.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
the Company (under its former Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. name)
and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that the
Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in its public disclosures during the period from
February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, the Company responded to the amended complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The
dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to
file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In
November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged
to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that
were not substantively very different than the allegations in the
prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and the Company responded to the
second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On
July 22, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third
amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The
third amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, 2015, the Company filed its motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff,
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint
to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on
March 1, 2016.

The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March
24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May 6,
2016. On June 13, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss.
The matter is now fully briefed.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and New Hertz, which is responsible for managing this matter, has
informed the Company that it intends to vigorously defend against
the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and
the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It
is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to the
Company. However, the Company is currently unable to estimate the
range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the
Company's consolidated and combined financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Herc Holdings Inc. is among the largest equipment rental companies
in North America. It conducts substantially all of its operations
through subsidiaries, including Herc Rentals Inc. ("Herc").


HP INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over 401(k) Plan Fiduciary Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BURGESS, RHONDA JOHNSON, LARRY LOPEZ, HOLGER MEYER, and ALAN
B. MUNNS, the Plaintiffs, v. HP INC., FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST
COMPANY, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY,
and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04784
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to declare that Defendant has
breached its fiduciary duties to 401(k) Plan and engaged in
prohibited transactions.

The individual Plaintiffs in the case are employees of HP Inc. and
United Airlines, Inc. and participants, respectively, in the
Hewlett-Packard Company 401(k) Plan and the United Airlines Ground
Employee 401(k) Plan, both of which are profit-sharing plans with
cash-or-deferred arrangements.

Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee and fiduciary to the
HP and UAL Plans and the putative Float Plans Class and HP and UAL
Plan Participant Class, manages the cash generated by its
qualified retirement plan customers. After the cash generated by a
Plan transaction is credited to the account of the Plan, Fidelity
effectively withdraws that cash from the Plan and deposits that
cash into an account maintained in the name of or for the benefit
of Fidelity, and Fidelity allegedly uses that cash for its own
benefit or for its own account, in violation of its fiduciary
obligations under ERISA

HP Inc. is an American technology company, created on November 1,
2015, as one of two successors of Hewlett-Packard, along with
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com
                  gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
                  mckay@schneiderwallace.com


HRG GROUP: Settlement Completion in "Cressy" Case Extended
----------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, 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 deadline for
settlement completion in the case by Eddie L. Cressy has been
extended from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et al. ("Cressy") in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles (the "LA Court"), Case No. BC-
514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to
maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter
alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied
on defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the LA Court entered final judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, FGL
tendered $1.3 million to the settlement administrator for a claim
review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement
feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement,
which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015,
the parties filed a joint motion to amend the January 2, 2015
final order and judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement
completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016.

At June 30, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement,
legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be $9.2
million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate
of $0.6 million. FGL has incurred and paid $5.0 million related to
legal fees and other costs and $3.3 million related to settlement
costs as of June 30, 2016. Based on the information currently
available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement,
legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the
amount accrued.

HRG Group, Inc. is a diversified holding company focused on owning
businesses that the Company believes can, in the long term,
generate sustainable free cash flow or attractive returns on
investment. HRG's shares of common stock trade on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "HRG."  The Company's
reportable business segments are organized in a manner that
reflects how HRG's management views those business activities.
Accordingly, the Company currently operates its business in four
reporting segments: (i) Consumer Products, (ii) Insurance, (iii)
Energy, and (iv) Asset Management.


HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, 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 appeal in the case
by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated ("Plaintiff Ludwick") v. Harbinger Group Inc.
(HRG's former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front
Street Cayman (the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims
Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity.

On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted
the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal.

As of June 30, 2016, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient
information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that
would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense
contingency estimate of $1.5 million, which was accrued during the
nine months ended June 30, 2016.

HRG Group, Inc. is a diversified holding company focused on owning
businesses that the Company believes can, in the long term,
generate sustainable free cash flow or attractive returns on
investment. HRG's shares of common stock trade on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "HRG."  The Company's
reportable business segments are organized in a manner that
reflects how HRG's management views those business activities.
Accordingly, the Company currently operates its business in four
reporting segments: (i) Consumer Products, (ii) Insurance, (iii)
Energy, and (iv) Asset Management.


HUMAN RESOURCE: "Lamones" Sues Over Adverse Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Lamones, Jr., individually and as a representative of the
classes, Plaintiff, v. Human Resource Profile, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-02422, (E.D. Ohio, August 23, 2016), seeks
statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, costs and all available other appropriate relief under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant is a consumer reporting agency with its principal office
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully
reported adverse information about his criminal charges which did
not result in a conviction, even though the charges were dismissed
more than seven years previously. He missed employment
opportunities because of this.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Yanchunis, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813) 223-5505
     Fax: (813) 223-5402
     Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

            - and -

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


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Dismissal of Customer Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, 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 has
filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by an individual
customer.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former
customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by
the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint
seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.  The Company believes that the
complaint is without merit and the Company has filed a motion to
dismiss it.

Among other things, the Company's customer agreement, federal law
and associated industry rules grant broker-dealers broad
discretion to close out margin deficient customer accounts for the
broker's protection. Further, the Company does not believe that a
purported class action is appropriate given the great differences
in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding
the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient
account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past
practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any
potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Accord Up for Sept. 8 Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, 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
scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the proposed
class action settlement on September 8, 2016.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014,
purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants.
These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on
behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our
securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014."

"The lawsuits alleged that we made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in our public disclosures during
the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged improper disclosures relate to our January 9, 2014
announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on
a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the
lawsuits claimed that the January 9, 2014 announcement was
misleading because it did not contain information regarding
certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated
patients compared to placebo.

"On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court. The lead plaintiff was seeking unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015.
On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by
the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April
13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel. On September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the
plaintiff's class certification motion. The plaintiff filed its
reply to the defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which
the defendants filed a sur-reply on November 10, 2015. Oral
arguments on the class certification motion were held on January
20, 2016.

"On May 2, 2016, we reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff
to seek Court approval of a proposed resolution. The plaintiffs
moved for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on May
5, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The Court ordered that notice be
provided to the class and preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement, including the payment of $55 million, of which $10
million was agreed to be funded by our insurers. The settlement
was paid into escrow in June 2016, with distribution to the class
to occur after the Court has finally approved the settlement and a
plan of allocation of those proceeds. The Court has scheduled a
hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement on
September 8, 2016.

"Under the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit any
liability. The defendants also continue to deny all allegations
against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit. It is
anticipated that the settlement will not have a material impact on
our business."


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------------
Intercloud Systems, 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 the
case, In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, are currently
engaged in discovery.

In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR,
as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms,
and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November
5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by
the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with
certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive
the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of
the purported class to purchase shares of the Company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements
of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary
to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleged
that Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange
Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs.

On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015
adding additional third-party defendants. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March
2015. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on March 13, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was
denied by the Court on October 29, 2015. The Court held a status
conference on February 29, 2016, and entered a PreTrial Scheduling
Order on February 29, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.


INTREXON CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
Intrexon 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 court has entered
an order consolidating two shareholder lawsuits and appointing a
lead plaintiff.

In May 2016, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits,
captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v.
Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Intrexon's common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016
(the "Class Period").

The complaints name as defendants Intrexon and certain of its
current officers (the "Defendants"). The complaints allege, among
other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws,
the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
in the Company's periodic reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed
during the Class Period with respect to the Company's business,
operations and prospects. The basis for the plaintiffs' claims
derived from a report published in April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha
financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In July 2016, the court hearing the matters entered an order
consolidating the lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits.


J.B HUNT: Drivers File Class Action in Los Angeles
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Los Angeles accuses J.B. Hunt Inc. of stiffing drivers for
overtime and expenses.


J2 GLOBAL: Motion for Summary Judgment in Paldo Sign Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 j2 Global
affiliates' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in
a class action lawsuit by Paldo Sign and Display Co. remain
pending.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former
employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss
the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern
District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was
added.

On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary
judgment on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions are
pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes our j2 Cloud Connect, which is primarily focused on our
number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division
specializes in the technology and gaming markets, reaching in-
market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-
to-business space.


J2 GLOBAL: Settlement of LEO and Dancel Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 class-based
settlement reached in the case by Law Enforcement Officers, Inc.
("LEO") and Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") remains subject to court
approval.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among
other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself
and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class
action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles
Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three
California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common
law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and
consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015,
a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff.

On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed
pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the
parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative
class-based settlement that remains subject to court approval.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes our j2 Cloud Connect, which is primarily focused on our
number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division
specializes in the technology and gaming markets, reaching in-
market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-
to-business space.


JOHN KASICH: Ball, et al. Seek Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Phyllis Ball, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
John Kasich, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00282-EAS-
EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class
of:

     "all Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and
     developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio
     who, on or after March 31, 2016, are institutionalized, or
     at serious risk of institutionalization, in an Intermediate
     Care Facility with eight or more beds, and who have not
     documented their opposition to receiving integrated,
     community-based services."

The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Disability Rights
Ohio, Sidley Austin, LLP, Attorney Samuel Bagenstos, and the
Center for Public Representation as co-class counsel in the
action. The Plaintiffs also request oral argument which is
essential to the fair resolution of the Motion.

The Plaintiffs contend that the service system for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities provides support for
tens of thousands of individuals and their families across Ohio.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kerstin Sjoberg-Witt, Esq.
          Kevin J. Truitt, Esq.
          Alison McKay, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS OHIO
          50 West Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 466 7264
          Facsimile: (614) 644 1888
          E-mail: ksjobergwitt@disabilityrightsohio.org
                  ktruitt@disabilityrightsohio.org
                  amckay@disabilityrightsohio.org

               - and -

          Neil R. Ellis, Esq.
          Kristen A. Knapp, Esq.
          Kristen E. Rau, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-736-8075
          Facsimile: 202-736-8711
          E-mail: nellis@sidley.com
                  kknapp@sidley.com
                  krau@Sidley.com

               - and -

          Cathy E. Costanzo, Esq.
          Kathryn L. Rucker, Esq.
          Anna Krieger, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green Street
          Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
          Telephone: 413-586-6024
          Facsimile: 413-586-5711
          E-mail: ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org
                  krucker@cpr-ma.org
                  akrieger@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Samuel R. Bagenstos, Esq.
          E-mail: sbagen@gmail.com
          625 South State Street
          Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
          Telephone: (734) 647 7584


JOLIET STAFFING: "Gordon" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Travis Gordon, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Joliet
Staffing LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07995 (N.D. Ill., August
10, 2016), seeks federally and state-mandated minimum wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant has been in the business of providing logistics services
to warehouses in Illinois including Trader Joe's warehouse in
Minooka, Illinois, where Plaintiff worked as an electric pallet
jack operator.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Workers' Law Office, PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 795-9121


K12 INC: Faces "Tarapara" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
K12 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 securities class action lawsuit
captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al. was filed on July
20, 2016, against the Company, two of its officers and one of its
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-04069.

The Company said, "The plaintiff purports to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, and
alleges violations by us and the individual defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange
Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act."

"The complaint alleges, among other things, that we and the
individual defendants made false or misleading statements and
omitted to disclose material facts concerning students' academic
progress, graduate eligibility for University of California and
California State University admission, class sizes, the
individualized and flexible nature of the instruction provided by
us, the quality of materials provided to students, reporting with
respect to student attendance and funding, and that as a result of
the aforementioned practices we were exposed to liability and
would be forced to end these purported practices. The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to
defend vigorously against each and every allegation and claim set
forth in the complaint."

K12 is a technology-based education company.


LAWTON CORRECTIONAL: Court Defers Ruling on Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Suzamne Mitchelle entered an order in the lawsuit
styled MICHAEL D. LEATHERWOOD, the Plaintiff, v. HECTOR RIOS,
Warden, Lawton Correctional Facility, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00767-C (W.D. Okla.), declining to rule on Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and motion for appointment of
counsel for purposes of class certification, until after ruling on
the pending dispositive motions.

The Defendants' joint motion for an extension of time to respond
to Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, is denied as
moot. If necessary, the court will grant Defendants time to
respond to the motion at a later date.

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


LASERSHIP INC: Faces "Caraballo" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CARABALLO, of himself and those similarly situated, v.
LASERSHIP, INC., a Foreign Corporation, and LASER COURIER, INC., a
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-01081-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va.,
August 23, 2016), alleges that delivery/courier drivers for
LaserShip were misclassified as "independent contractors" in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LaserShip, Inc. -- http://www.lasership.com-- is a regional
parcel carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 587-9373
     Fax: (301) 587-9397
     E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfimi.com

        - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407)420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3401
     E-mail: RMorgan@.forthepeoDle.com

        - and -

     Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954)318-0268
     Fax: (954)327-3016
     E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Defending Cases Related to Public Offering
------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub 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 in the first and second
quarter of 2016, five putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in California
Superior Court, San Mateo County, naming as defendants the
Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the
underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the
IPO).

All of these actions were consolidated into a single action
(Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading
statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO registration statement and prospectus, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper. The Company believes that the
plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Stay Securities Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub 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's motion to
stay a consolidated securities lawsuit was denied.

In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions
(entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors (Federal Securities
Class Actions). Both actions assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and one of them
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
similar to those alleged in the Consolidated State Court Action. A
hearing on plaintiffs' motions to consolidate these cases and to
appoint lead plaintiffs is set for mid-August 2016.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. On August 5, the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated case was denied.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending
------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub 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's motion to
compel arbitration of the federal consumer class action on an
individual basis is pending.

In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
federal court in New York, alleging that persons received loans,
through the Company's platform, that exceeded states' usury limits
in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws, and the
federal RICO statute. The defendants, in addition to the Company,
are WebBank, Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. and the Lending Club
Members Trust.

The Company has agreed to indemnify WebBank and Steel Partners
Holdings, L.P. against certain liabilities in connection with this
matter. The plaintiff seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief.

The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis, which is now pending. The Company believes that
the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
defend this matter vigorously.


LIFE INSURANCE: Sept. 22 Hearing Set on Dolemba's Bid to Certify
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case
entitled Scott Dolemba v. Life Insurance Center, LLC, The, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08091 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that:

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

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is continued to
      October 13, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- Scheduling Conference is set for October 13, 2016, at 9:30
      a.m.; and

   -- Parties Rule 26 report is to be filed by October 11, 2016.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h3CtfDgv


LIFE LINE: "Neuharth" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA NEUHARTH and DUANE LINDENBACH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. LIFE LINE BILLING SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a LIFEQUEST
SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1123 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class, appoint the Plaintiff
as its representative, and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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.  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).

As this motion to certify a class 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 Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, 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
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com

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


LIFELOCK INC: Settlement in "Ebarle" Case Awaits Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, 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 is awaiting
the court's final ruling of the settlement in the Ebarle class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle
and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action
lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that we
engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection
with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act and seek declaratory judgment under the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act."

"On January 20, 2016, the court overseeing the Ebarle Class Action
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
conditionally approving the parties' proposed settlement
agreement. On February 11, 2016, the court overseeing the FTC
Action entered an order allowing the $68 million to be transferred
from the court's registry to the court-ordered settlement
administrator in the Ebarle Class Action to fund the settlement.
Notice has been sent to the class members. The deadline for class
members to object was April 14, 2016, and the deadline for class
members to submit claims was April 29, 2016. A hearing on final
approval was held on June 23, 2016, and we are awaiting the
court's final ruling.

"As of June 30, 2016 we have $13.0 million accrued for settlement
of this claim, which was not included within the $100 million
settlement paid to the court registry in connection with the
settlement of the FTC Contempt Action and nationwide class action
claims. In addition, we have $3.0 million accrued for a potential
settlement with states attorneys general for related claims."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LIFELOCK INC: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend "Avila" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, 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 Company's motion to dismiss and granted lead plaintiffs
twenty-one days to seek leave to amend their complaint.

The Company said, "On July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing
himself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired
our securities from July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona. His complaint alleges that Todd
Davis, Christopher Power, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or
misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts about
our business, operations, and prospects, including with regard to
our information security program, advertising, recordkeeping, and
our compliance with the FTC Order. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and
attorney's fees and costs.

"On September 21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma
Police Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson,
and their respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be
appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class
action. Lead plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery stay imposed
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on January 21,
2016.

"We, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, opposed that motion on
February 8, 2016. On April 22, 2016, the Court denied lead
plaintiffs' motion. We, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on January 29, 2016. On August 3,
2016 the Court granted our motion to dismiss and granted lead
plaintiffs twenty-one days to seek leave to amend their
complaint."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LIFELOCK INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Litig. Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, 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 briefing of a class
action appeal has been completed, but oral argument on the appeal
has not been set by the Ninth Circuit.

The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, and March 10, 2014, two
securities class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, against us, Mr. Todd
Davis, and Mr. Christopher Power. On June 16, 2014, the court
consolidated the complaints into a single action captioned In re
LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel."

"On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the Consolidated Amended
Complaint), seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired
our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive
(the Class Period). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged
that we, along with Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Ms. Schneider,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making materially false or misleading statements, or
failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our
business, operational, and compliance policies, including with
regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and
Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order.

"The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result,
certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period
and certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis,
and Mr. Power during the Class Period, were false and misleading.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
September 15, 2014, we, along with Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis, and
Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the
Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days
to seek leave to amend.

"On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint which contained similar allegations, but no
longer named Ms. Schneider as a defendant. On January 30, 2015,
we, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss
the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 21, 2015, the
court granted the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, and
entered judgment in our favor.

"On August 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff along with another
shareholder, City of Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Fund, moved to vacate the judgment on the
grounds that the FTC's July 21, 2015 motion seeking to hold us in
contempt of the FTC Order constituted surprise and newly
discovered evidence. Plaintiffs also sought permission to file a
Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.

"We, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power opposed plaintiffs' motion. On
September 18, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate
the July 21, 2015 judgment and plaintiffs' request to file another
complaint. On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs appeal
from the lower court's July 21, 2015 order dismissing the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint and entering judgment in our favor,
and the court's September 18, 2015 order denying plaintiffs'
motion to vacate that judgment. Briefing of the appeal has been
completed, but oral argument on the appeal has not been set by the
Ninth Circuit."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bennett" Class Suit Transferred to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brian Bennett, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05299, was transferred from
the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina (Asheville). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00281-MOC-DLH to
the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              TWolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Dunkin" Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Wendy Dunkin, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05276, was transferred from
the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01347-RLW to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hotaling" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Karen Hotaling, Margaret
Markoski, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
05302, was transferred from the District of California Central to
the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04646-
JFB-GRB to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Transferred "Ryan" Suit to District Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kelly Ryan, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05287, was transferred from
the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-01978-JAD-GWF to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Goodling" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Louanne Goodling, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05414, was transferred
from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
Western District of Louisiana (Monroe). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01201 to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "McPherson" Suit Transferred to W.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Matthew McPherson, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05409, was transferred
from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01263-AJS to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Strong" Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Raymond Strong, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05283, was transferred
from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00357-RAW to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Leonard" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tina Leonard, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05286, was transferred from
the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02091-SO to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


MCKESSON CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in "True Health" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam entered an order denying certification of a nationwide
class of:

     "[a]ll persons or entities who received faxes from
     'McKesson' from September 2, 2009, to May 11, 2010, offering
     'Medisoft,' 'Lytec,' or 'Revenue Management Advanced'
     software or 'BillFlash Patient Statement Service,' where the
     faxes do not inform the recipient of the right to 'opt out'
     of future faxes."

The Court also denies Defendants' motion for a stay as moot. The
Court sets a case management conference for Tuesday, September 6,
2016 at 2:00 p.m. The parties should be prepared to discuss case
scheduling at the hearing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dDT3d8aw


MDL 2295: $18MM Settlement of TCPA Suit Awaits Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, 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 $18 million
settlement of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation
remains subject to final court approval.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On
December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14,
2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following
the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June
10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court
lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May
20, 2014.

In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
principle ("the Settlement Agreement") under which the parties
agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the
proposed settlement. As required by the Settlement Agreement,
which remains subject to final court approval, the parties sought
preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the
Company paid $18 million to resolve the MDL action during second
quarter of 2016. The Company had fully accrued for the settlement
amount as of December 31, 2015.


MDL 2371: UMS Class Action Appeal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 Unified Messaging
Solutions, LLC and the j2 Global affiliate's appeal in a class
action lawsuit is still pending.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-
1611). The appeal is pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes our j2 Cloud Connect, which is primarily focused on our
number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division
specializes in the technology and gaming markets, reaching in-
market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-
to-business space.


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-04635-WFK-RML (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. is a collection
agency which provides adjustment and collection services for
insurance and financial sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCC BUSINESS: Certification of Class Sought in "Woodward" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maranda Woodward moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled MARANDA WOODWARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCC BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01144-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.).  The
Plaintiff also 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 Plaintiff asserts, 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=ZR4FmLJN

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


NEW MEXICO: Faces Workers' Class Action for Back Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that it took six years for New Mexico to adjust wages under its
Public Works Minimum Wage Act, so the state owes tens of thousands
of workers back pay for those years, 52 workers say in a federal
class action in Albuquerque.

When the Legislature amended the Public Works Minimum Wage Act in
2009, the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Workforce
Solutions was tasked with adjusting the minimum and prevailing
wages and benefits for mechanics and laborers in all public works
projects with budgets of $60,000 or more.

But the state didn't do this until 2015, lead plaintiff Randy
Cummings et al. say in the Aug. 23 lawsuit, so it owes more than
10,000 workers pay adjustments and benefits. They sued the
Department of Workforce Solutions and its Labor Relations Division
for violations of due process.

They seek class certification, liquidated damages, back pay and
benefits, and punitive damages, because they call the state
actions "intentional, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard"
of their rights.

They are represented by James Montalbano, with Youtz & Valdez.


NEW YORK: OTDA Faces Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Brooks, Clifton DeMeco, and Brian Blowers, on behalf of
himself 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.,
August 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Civil Rights Act.

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance is
the Department of social services in New York City, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc Cohan, Esq.
      Petra T. Tasheff, Esq.
      NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC.
      275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 633-6967
      Facsimile: (212) 633-6371
      E-mail: cohan@nclej.org
              tasheff@nclej.org

         - and -

      Saima A. Akhtar, Esq.
      Susan C. Antos, Esq.
      EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
      119 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Albany, NY 12210
      Telephone: (518) 462-6831
      Facsimile: (518) 462-6687
      E-mail: sakhtar@empirejustice.org
              santos@empirejustice.org


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Dismissal Bid Up for Oral Argument
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, 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 oral argument has
been set for October 11, 2016, on the motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit in Delaware.

On June 19, 2015, two purported shareholders filed a complaint
purportedly suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated
shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the Company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The lawsuit names Cognate
BioServices, Inc., Toucan Partners, Toucan Capital Fund III, our
CEO Linda Powers and the Company's Board of Directors as
defendants, and names the Company as a "nominal defendant" with
respect to the derivative claims.

The complaint generally objects to certain transactions between
the Company and Cognate and the Toucan entities, in which Cognate
and the Toucan entities provided services and financing to the
Company, or agreed to conversion of debts owed to them by the
Company into equity.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
relief for the Company and the plaintiffs, and various forms of
equitable relief, including disgorgement of allegedly improper
benefits, rescission of the challenged transactions, and an order
forbidding similar transactions in the future.

On September 1, 2015, the Company and other named defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 6, 2015.

The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on January 19, 2016. The
plaintiffs filed an answering brief in opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 4, 2016. The Company and the other defendants
filed reply briefs on May 18, 2016. Oral argument has been set for
October 11, 2016. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend the case.

Northwest Biotherapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on
developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers more
effectively than current treatments, without toxicities of the
kind associated with chemotherapies, and, through a proprietary
batch manufacturing process, on a cost-effective basis, initially
in the United States, Canada and Europe.


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Case Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, 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 motion to dismiss
a securities class action lawsuit in Maryland remains pending.

On August 26, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  The lawsuit names the Company and Ms.
Powers as defendants.  On December 14, 2015, the court appointed
two lead plaintiffs. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 12, 2016, purportedly on behalf of all of
those who purchased common stock in NW Bio between January 13,
2014 and August 21, 2015. The amended complaint generally claims
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making misleading
statements and/or omissions on a variety of subjects, including
the status and results of the Company's DCVax trials.  The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company and Ms. Powers filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint on April 12, 2016.  The plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 13, 2016. The Company
and Ms. Powers filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss
on July 28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
case.

Northwest Biotherapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on
developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers more
effectively than current treatments, without toxicities of the
kind associated with chemotherapies, and, through a proprietary
batch manufacturing process, on a cost-effective basis, initially
in the United States, Canada and Europe.


OMNI LIMOUSINE: "Keen" Suit Seeks Overtime, Waiting Time Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Keen and Robin Mooney on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Omni Limousine and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-01903 (D.
Nev., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages due, waiting
time wages as well as overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Nevada Revised Statute and Nevada State
Constitution.

Defendant is in the business of providing limousine services, with
principal place of business at 1401 Helm Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Plaintiffs worked as drivers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah L. Jones, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV 89511
      Tel. (775) 284-1500
      Fax. (775) 703-5027
      Email: mark@thiermanbuck.com
             josh@thiermanbuck.com
             leah@thiermanbuck.com


ON TIME SECURING: "Hane" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. On Time Securing, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-02002, (E.D. Ohio, August 10, 2016), seeks unpaid wages
and overtime compensation as well as liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

On Time Securing Inc. is a small, fairly new organization in the
business services industry located in North Canton, OH.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
     Canton, OH 44718
     Telephone: (330) 470-4428
     Fax: (330) 754-1430
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued on Sept. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Able Home Health, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Onsite
Healthcare, Inc.,S.C., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08219 (N.D. Ill.),
continuing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the entry made by the Clerk on August 22, 2016, an
initial status hearing is set for September 19, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
The parties are to report the following: (1) possibility of
settlement in the case; and (2) if no possibility of settlement
exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary to get the
case ready for trial.

The Plaintiff is ordered to advise all other parties of the
court's action. The Lead counsel is directed to appear at the
status hearing. The parties are requested to file a joint status
report at least two days prior to the initial status

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4Qz7XFCX


ORANGE COUNTY: "McMahon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Jennifer A. McMahon, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Orange County New York Office of the
Medical Examiner and Department Of Health, Defendants, Case No.
7:16-cv-06364, (S.D. N.Y., August 10, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and damages from untimely
payment of wages and violations of notice requirements under New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked for the Orange County New York Office of the
Medical Examiner and Department of Health as a Child Fatality
Review Specialist. She claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
      CHARNY & ASSOCIATES
      9 West Market Street
      Rhinebeck, NY 12572
      Tel: (845) 876-7500
      Email: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com


ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES: Sued in Tex. Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE CRAMM, CHRISTOPHER BORNER, JAMES M. KIRKSEY, ARNOLD E.
BENJAMIN, AND HAJRO MURATI, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC.
D/B/A ELITE LIMOSINE OF HOUSTON, ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC D/B/A
ELITE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, ET AL., Case No. 4:16-
cv-02576 (S.D. Tex., August 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wage under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC. is a car service which provides
chauffeurs/drivers for cars owned by Defendants to drive
Defendants clients within local areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander Defreitas, Esq.
     Williams Tower
     2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4100
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (832) 390-2388
            (832) 794-6792
     Fax: (281) 784-3777
     E-mail: a.defreitas@lawyer.com


OUTERWALL INC: "Filippov" Sues Over Acquisition by Apollo Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY FILIPPOV, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. OUTERWALL, INC., JEFFREY J. BROWN, NELSON C. CHAN,
NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E.
PRUSCH, and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case No. 2:16-cv-01329 (W.D.
Wash., August 23, 2016), seeks to enjoin the acquisition of
Outerwall by Funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global
Management VIII, L.P.

Outerwall, Inc. provides kiosks to retail stores, and owns several
of the most visible brands, including Redbox, Coinstar, and
ecoATM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


OWENS & MINOR: "Snyder" Suit Removed to District of Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Janet H. Snyder, individually,
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Owens &
Minor Distribution, Inc., Owens & Minor, Inc., Joshua B. Waxman,
Mary Cook, Joshua B. Waxman, Mary McKenna, Bert Smith, and Joshua
B. Waxman, Case No. C-02-cv-16-001049, was removed from the
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02932-RDB to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a healthcare logistics company in Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil R. Lebowitz, Esq.
      LEBOWITZ LAW FIRM
      10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy., Suite 590
      Columbia, MD 21044
      Telephone: (410) 730-9010
      E-mail: neil@lebowitzlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      815 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 842-3400
      Facsimile: (202) 478-2623
      E-mail: jwaxman@littler.com


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Has Reached Settlement of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental 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 Bank has
reached a tentative settlement of a class action in Oregon and the
lawsuit by the Berjac of Oregon trustee. The settlement of the
Class Action will require approval of the Circuit Court judge. The
settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class
Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money
with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively,
"Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company,
Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class
Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently
asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack"
W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth,
P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that
Pacific Continental Bank is jointly and severally liable for
materially aiding or participating in Berjac's sales of securities
in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the
return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of
Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The
current version of the complaint seeks $100 million in damages
from all defendants. The matter is currently set for trial
beginning October 3, 2016.

On August 28, 2014, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for
Berjac of Oregon filed an adversary complaint (Trustee's Lawsuit)
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon alleging
that the Company, the Bank, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and Summit
Bank provided lines of credit that enabled continuation of the
alleged Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of Oregon and the two
partners of the pre-existing Berjac general partnerships, Michael
Holcomb and Gary Holcomb. Pacific Continental Corporation acquired
Century Bank on February 1, 2013. The Trustee's Lawsuit was
transferred from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon (Eugene Division), where it is
currently pending.

In addition to seeking an award of punitive damages, the trustee
is asserting fraudulent transfer law and unjust enrichment in an
effort to recover payments made by Berjac to Century Bank and
Pacific Continental Bank. Among other claims for relief, the
trustee is seeking the disgorgement of monies advanced to the
Holcomb Family Limited Partnership by Century Bank and returned to
the estate by court order following the post-petition cash
collateral hearing, and of monies received by Pacific Continental
Bank from the proceeds of the sale of stock held by the Holcomb
Family Limited Partnership and securing one of the lines of credit
previously held by Century Bank. The trustee also asserts a claim
for alleged aiding and abetting of breaches of duties owed to
Berjac. The complaint in the Trustee's Lawsuit indicates the range
of damages sought by the trustee which include, among other claims
for relief, an award of punitive damages not to exceed $10
million, recovery of payments associated with allegedly fraudulent
transfers totaling up to approximately $55.3 million, including up
to $20.7 million from Century Bank and up to $7.7 million from
Pacific Continental Bank. This case is not currently set for
trial.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court judge stayed all
deadlines in the Trustee's Lawsuit and all parties were ordered to
participate in a judicial settlement conference. The judicial
settlement conference sessions were held on February 18, 2016 and
on April 20, 2016. At the April 20, 2016, settlement conference,
the Bank reached a tentative settlement of the Class Action and
the Trustee's Lawsuit. The settlement of the Class Action will
require approval of the Circuit Court judge. The settlement is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition.


PCP FOR LIFE: "Bunker" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
CRISTY BUNKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, v. PCP FOR LIFE, PA and NAJMUDDIN K. KARIMJEE, Case No.
4:16-cv-02573 (S.D. Tex., August 23, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as Nurse Practitioner and
Physician Assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Wiley, Esq.
     Kalandra N. Wheeler, Esq.
     ROB WILEY, P.C.
     2613 Thomas Avenue
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Phone: (214) 528-6500
     Fax: (214) 528-6511
     E-mail: kwheeler@robwiley.com


PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Urban" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Richard M. Urban, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PetroQuest Energy
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-03980, was transferred from the District of
New York Southern to the U.S. District Court Western District of
Louisiana (Lafayette). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:16-cv-01203 to the proceeding.

PetroQuest Energy Inc. operates an oil and gas company in
Lafayette, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORINSKY
      30 Board St 24th Fl
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lewis Richard Clayton, Esq.
      Cameron Sloan Friedman, Esq.
      Robert Neil Kravitz, Esq.
      PAUL WEISS ET AL
      1285 Ave of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019-6064
      Telephone: (212) 373-3215
      Facsimile: (212) 373-2070
      E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com
              cfriedman@paulweiss.com
              rkravitz@paulweiss.com

         - and -

      Ray Thomas Torgerson, Esq.
      PORTER & HEDGES
      1000 Main St Ste 3600
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 226-6650
      Facsimile: (713) 228-1331
      E-mail: rtorgerson@porterhedges.com


PIZZA THEATRE: "Huntley" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Huntley, Brian Devlin, William Seufert, and Nardico Sims
on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Pizza Theatre, Inc., an Ohio
corporation, Theatre Pizza, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and Stephen
Gfell, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01995, (N.D.
Ohio, August 10, 2016), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum
wages, withheld tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
disbursements of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate over a number of Domino's Pizza
restaurants including one located at 1 Berea Commons, Ste. #2,
Berea, OH 44017 where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
                 (216) 395-4226
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews, et al. Seek Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion
for class certification in the lawsuit styled KEITH ANDREWS, an
individual; TIFFANI ANDREWS, an individual; BACIU FAMILY LLC, a
California limited liability company; ROBERT BOYDSTON, an
individual; CAPTAIN JACK'S SANTA BARBARA TOURS, LLC, a California
limited liability company; MORGAN CASTAGNOLA, an individual, THE
EAGLE FLEET, LLC, a California limited liability company; ZACHARY
FRAZIER, an individual; MIKE GANDALL, an individual; ALEXANDRA B.
GEREMIA, as Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated
8/5/1998; JIM GUELKER, an individual; JACQUES HABRA, an
individual; ISURF, LLC, a California limited liability company;
MARK KIRKHART, an individual; MARY KIRKHART, an individual;
RICHARD LILYGREN, an individual; HWA HONG MUH, an individual;
OCEAN ANGEL IV, LLC, a California limited liability company;
PACIFIC RIM FISHERIES, INC., a California corporation; SARAH
RATHBONE, an individual; COMMUNITY SEAFOOD LLC, a California
limited liability company; SANTA BARBARA UNI, INC., a California
corporation; SOUTHERN CAL SEAFOOD, INC., a California corporation;
TRACTIDE MARINE CORP., a California corporation; WEI INTERNATIONAL
TRADING INC., a California corporation; and STEPHEN WILSON, an
individual, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs; v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership, PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas
limited partnership, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

A hearing on the request will be held on November 7, 2016, at 1:30
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the
Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, in Courtroom 880 of the United
States District Court, Central District of California, located at
255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z7DL3OVG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Daniel Mensher, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384

               - and -

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456 1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456 1497

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          David Cousineau, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3227
          Telephone: (805) 564 2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965 5950

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568 2556


PROJECT INVESTORS: CRYPTSY Owners Class Certified in Leidel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned BRANDON LEIDEL, and MICHAEL
WILSON, individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PROJECT INVESTORS, INC. d/b/a CRYPTSY, a Florida
corporation, PAUL VERNON, an individual, and LORIE ANN NETTLES, an
individual, Case No. 9:16-cv-80060-KAM (S.D. Fla.).

The Class is defined as:

     All CRYPTSY account owners who held Bitcoins, alternative
     cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency at
     CRYPTSY as of November 1, 2015 to the present. Excluded from
     the Class are: (1) employees of CRYPTSY, including its
     shareholders, officers and directors and members of their
     immediate families; (2) any judge to whom this action is
     assigned and the judge's immediate family; and (3) persons
     who timely and validly opt to exclude themselves from the
     Class.

The Class claims are the conversion, negligence, unjust
enrichment, specific performance, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, fraudulent conveyance and civil conspiracy
claims contained in counts I-V and VII - IX of the Amended
Complaint.

Judge Marra also appoints (i) Brandon Leidel and Michael Wilson as
representatives of the Class, and (ii) Marc A. Wites, Esq., and
Wites & Kapetan, P.A., and Scott L. Silver, Esq., and David C.
Silver, Esq. of The Silver Law Group, as counsel to the Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l0JPGPTM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
          4400 N Federal Hwy
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064-6507
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          David C. Silver, Esq.
          The Silver Law Group
          11780 W Sample Rd.
          Coral Springs, FL 33065-3141
          Telephone: (954) 755-4799
          Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com
                  dsilver@silverlaw.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss "Hsu" Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 motion to dismiss the
case, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et al., remains pending.

The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  On October 16, 2015,
lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on
behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July
22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  The amended complaint alleges that we
and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief."

"On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard
oral argument on March 14, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend
this matter."


QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Court Entered Final Judgment in "Nguyen"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quotient Technology 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 entered
final judgment in the Company's favor in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed against us, the members of our board of
directors, certain of our executive officers and the underwriters
of our IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-
544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class
of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO."

"Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without
prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint
with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-
CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar.
30, 2015).  Three other complaints with substantially the same
allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015).

"On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So
and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. The Court
sustained defendants' demurrer to the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer
to the amended consolidated complaint without leave to amend on
May 25, 2016, and on July 13, 2016 entered final judgment in our
favor.

"We intend to defend the litigation vigorously if plaintiffs
continue to litigate. Based on information currently available, we
believe that the potential for liability for the above claims is
remote."

Quotient Technology Inc., formerly known as Coupons.com
Incorporated, is a provider of digital promotions and media
solutions driven by consumer-shopping data.


R & A OYSTERS: Cordova, et al. Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES CORDOVA, LEOBARDO
MORALES INCLAN, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. R & A OYSTERS, INC., RODNEY
L. FOX, and ANN P. FOX, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-00462-WS-
M (S.D. Ala.), the Parties ask the Court to grant conditional
class certification for settlement purposes only and appoint
Southern Poverty Law Center as class counsel.

The Parties filed the Motion in conjunction with their Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Drozkr0q

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          Eunice H. Cho, Esq.
          James M. Knoepp, Esq.
          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 526 1497
          Facsimile: (504) 486 8947
          E-mail: Meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
                  Eunice.cho@splcenter.org
                  Jim.knoepp@splcenter.org
                  Samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rick A. La Trace, Esq.
          Alan C. Christian, Esq.
          Celia J. Collins, Esq.
          Spencer H. Larche, Esq.
          Post Office Box 1988
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Telephone: (251) 432 7682
          Facsimile: (251) 432 2800
          E-mail: ral@johnstoneadams.com
                  acc@johnstoneadams.com
                  cjc@johnstoneadams.com
                  shl@johnstoneadams.com

REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Hirthe Moves for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hirthe moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint filed in the lawsuit styled MELISSA HIRTHE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. d/b/a RAB INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01143-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.).

Ms. Hirthe also asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant her (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 Plaintiff asserts, 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, Ms.
Hirthe states.  She contends that she 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, Ms. Hirthe contends.

Ms. Hirthe 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=IwqJCfF4

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


RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss "Reynolds" Case Awaits Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products 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 proposed class
action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been
certified nor has a date been set to hear a motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S.
OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare
eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare
Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical
plan."

On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al
v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP
US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were
previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba,
South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama mills, and their spouses
and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications
described breach the collective bargaining agreements and plan
covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in
effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the
lawsuit.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to defend the action. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.

"The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and
no class has been certified nor has a date been set to hear our
motion to dismiss," the Company said.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Capital Corp. 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's motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the Douglas Drees action remains
pending.

The Company said, "In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015.  In
November 2015, the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead
plaintiff in the action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and
order directing the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint."

"In February 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging that we and certain of our officers and directors
materially misrepresented certain risks of our commercial loan
portfolio and our processes and controls for assessing the quality
of our portfolio.  Based on these allegations, the amended
complaint asserts claims for violation of the securities laws and
seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages
as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  We believe the amended
complaint is without merit and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously. In April 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remains pending."


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Certification in "Espejo" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Henry Espejo, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Santander
Consumer USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:11-cv-08987 (N.D.
Ill.), denying Levin's motion for class certification as moot and
duplicative of her Motion for class certification filed in the
correct action (Document No. 100 in Case No. 12-cv-9431),
according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 22,
2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E4FbEbBQ


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Weller" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Servicesource International, 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's motion to dismiss the Weller Lawsuit has been fully
briefed, and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court.

On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc.
et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was
brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period
January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act").

In connection with the mandatory lead plaintiff appointment
process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), various law firms issued press releases between July
2015 and September 2015 to search for additional shareholders that
would be willing to serve as lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
This solicitation period ended on September 29, 2015 and no other
shareholders came forward, leaving only the named plaintiff as the
sole shareholder seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The court
appointed Weller a lead plaintiff on October 21, 2015.

At this time, no motion to certify a class has been filed. The
Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will
vigorously defend itself against such claims. On December 9, 2015,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Weller Lawsuit.  The
motion has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a
ruling from the court.

ServiceSource International, Inc. (NASDAQ: SREV) is the global
leader in customer and revenue lifecycle solutions that power
enterprise revenue relationships. Based on the science of Revenue
Lifecycle Management ("RLM"), ServiceSource provides some of the
world's leading business to business ("B2B") companies with
expert, technology-enabled services and solutions that are proven
to grow and retain revenue from existing customers, directly or
through a channel.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gaitan" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabian Gaitan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Sherwin-Williams Company and Does 1-10, Case No.
3:16-cv-02105-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., August 19, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Sherwin-Williams Company engages in the development,
manufacture, distribution, and sale of paints, coatings, and
related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryce Aaron Dodds, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF BRYCE A. DODDS
      100 E. San Marcos Blvd., Ste. 400
      San Marcos, CA 92069
      Telephone: (760) 593-7353
      E-mail: bdodds@brycedoddslaw.com

SOLARCITY CORP: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity 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 on March 28, 2014, a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and two of its officers.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges claims for violations of
the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014.
On April 16, 2015, the District Court dismissed the complaint and
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in an attempt
to remedy the defects in the original complaint. The plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint, and the Company filed a renewed
motion to dismiss on August 7, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the
District Court dismissed the amended complaint and allowed
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint in an attempt to
remedy the defects in the existing complaint. The plaintiffs filed
the third amended complaint, and the Company has once again filed
a motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company
is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with
this lawsuit."


SOLARCITY CORP: Still Defends TCPA Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity 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 on November 6, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company. The complaint alleges that the Company made unlawful
telephone marketing calls to the plaintiff and others, in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf
of himself and a certified class. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which the District Court denied on April 6,
2016. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to
estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.


SOLARCITY CORP: Defending "Gibbs" Action in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity 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 on June 1, 2016, a
putative class action lawsuit, Gibbs v. SolarCity, alleging that
the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts. The two named plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and statutory damages, on behalf of themselves and a certified
class. The Company is reviewing the complaint and will respond
accordingly. The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is
unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this
lawsuit.


SUNBURST CONSULTING: Faces "Baker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
BROCK BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. SUNBURST CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00124-
SPW-CSO (D. Mont., August 23, 2016), alleges that Sunburst failed
to pay certain oilfield workers overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law.

SUNBURST CONSULTING, INC. -- http://www.sunburstconsulting.com--
is a geology service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip McGrady, Esq.
     MCGRADY LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 40
     Park City, MT 59063
     Phone: 406-322-8647
     Fax: 406-322-8649

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet St.
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Herod" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Daryl Herod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Swift Technical Services, LLC and Swift
Worldwide Resources Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02447, (S.D.
Tex., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Swift is a professional staffing business, providing engineering
and management employees to oil and gas companies around the
world. Herod began working for Swift in 2012 as a Rig Clerk.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com
             litkin@fibichlaw.com
             jbresler@fibichlaw.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faigy Rapaport, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-04648 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Synergetic Communication, Inc. operates a collection agency
located at 5250 E Seltice Way, Post Falls, ID 83854.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TILGHMAN BEACH: "Humphries" Suit Removed to Dist. of S. C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jill Keck Humphries, Dennis L.
Johnson, Delona Penny Rice, Whitmel L. Brown, Jr., Gary Steven
Robinson, Elizabeth Erin Humphries, Dennis L. Johnson, Jr., Nancy
H. Johnson v. Tilghman Beach and Racquet Club Condominium
Association Inc., James H. Austin III, Daniel G. Coe, C. Doug
Madison, George P. White, and Steele Brice Windle III, Case No.
2016-CP-26-04464, was removed from the Horry County Court of
Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Florence). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-02880-RBH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract.
The Defendants operate a condominium complex located at 2nd Ave N,
North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howell V. Bellamy III, Esq.
      Howell V. Bellamy Jr., Esq.
      BELLAMY LAW FIRM
      29th Avenue North
      Building Number 1004, Suite B
      Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
      Telephone: (843) 445-2805
      Facsimile: (843) 626-6478
      E-mail: hbellamyiii@bellamylaw.com
              nrichardson@bellamylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Bonnie A. Lynch, Esq.
      H. Sam Mabry III, Esq.
      Joshua D. Spencer, Esq.
      HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
      PO Box 2048
      Greenville, SC 29602
      Telephone: (864) 240-3312
      Facsimile: (864) 240-3300
      E-mail: blynch@hsblawfirm.com
              smabry@hsblawfirm.com
              jspencer@hsblawfirm.com


TIVO INC: "Klein" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TiVO, Inc., Peter Aquino, Jeff Hinson,
Dan Moloney, Thomas S. Rogers and Wendy Webb, Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-04503 (N.D. Cal., August 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin
consummation of merger, as well as full disclosure of all material
information, costs and disbursements of this action, including
attorney, accountants and expert fees and such other and further
relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

The proposed merger of TiVo, Rovi, Titan Technologies Corporation,
Nova Acquisition Sub, Inc. and Titan Acquisition Sub, Inc. was
opposed by two of its independent directors, thus casting a shadow
of doubt over the merits of the merger. Their view were not made
accessible to the shareholders.

Plaintiff is a stockholder of TiVo and owned TiVo common stock.

TiVo is a next-generation video technology software services and
innovative cloud-based software-as-a-service solutions provider.
Jeff Hinson, Peter Aquino, Jeff Hinson, Dan Moloney, Thomas S.
Rogers and Wendy Webb are members of its board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. McCall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 985-7290
     Email: amccall@zlk.com

            - and -

     Brian Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310
     Email: BDL@rl-legal.com
            GMS@rl-legal.com


TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Paid $0.3 Miillion in Attorneys Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Tobira Therapeutics, 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 te Company has paid the
award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $0.3 million on August 4,
2016.

The Company said, "On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of
Regado filed a putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v.
Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware, or the Court, challenging the
proposed stock-for-stock merger of Regado with Tobira, or the
Proposed Merger. On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative
class action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A.
No. 10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed
Merger. On May 4, 2015, the Proposed Merger was consummated and
Tobira became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its
name to Tobira Development, Inc. The complaints named as
defendants: (i) each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii)
Regado, (iii) Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc.
Plaintiffs alleged that Regado's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Regado's stockholders by, among other things,
(a) agreeing to merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate
consideration, (b) implementing a process that was distorted by
conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of
the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and
deter alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally alleged that the
entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors."

"On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado
Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion
for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed
in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the
Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures
related to the Merger Agreement and to cover Court-awarded fees.
On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado
provided additional disclosures to its stockholders.

"On May 4, 2015, Regado and Private Tobira completed the Merger.
In connection with the proposed settlement, the parties engaged in
confirmatory discovery. On April 22, 2016, the parties filed with
the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement
and Release, or the Stipulation, which provides for a release of
all claims against defendants related to any disclosures
concerning the Merger and any fiduciary duty claims concerning the
decision to enter into the Merger.

"In addition, the Stipulation of Settlement provides that the
Company or its insurer(s) or successor(s) in interest will be
responsible for payment of, and will not oppose, any award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs up to $0.3 million,
which the Company recognized as an accrued expense in its
accompanying Condensed Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2016.

"On July 27, 2016, the Court issued a final order and judgment
approving the settlement, granting plaintiffs' request for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $0.3 million, and
dismissing the litigation with prejudice. The Company paid the
award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $0.3 million on August 4,
2016."


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jackie 888 Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, seth L.
Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A.
Yanchik III, BMO Capital Markets Corp. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C. Janney Montgomery
Scott LLC.

The case is captioned Jackie 888, Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, seth L. Harrison, Timothy J.
Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik III, BMO Capital
Markets Corp. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, William
Blair & Company, L.L.C. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Case No. CGC
16 553796 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 20, 2016).


TRUECAR INC: Continues to Defend NY Lanham Act Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
TRUECAR, 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 continues
to defend against an amended complaint that survived the Company's
motion to dismiss.

On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the
NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous
automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar
platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as
well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and
deceptive acts or practices related to the Company's advertising
and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief
in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the
alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to
TrueCar Certified Dealers.

On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July
13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On January 6, 2016, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss with respect to some, but not all, of the
advertising and promotional activities challenged in the amended
complaint.

The Company believes that the portions of the amended complaint
that survived the Company's motion to dismiss are without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of June
30, 2016, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably
estimable," the Company said.


TRUECAR INC: Appeal in "Mahapatra" Case Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
TRUECAR, 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
plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal in the
case by Satyabrata Mahapatra.

On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Federal Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata
Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not
affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to
name Scott Painter, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer,
and Michael Guthrie, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as
individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants
named in the complaint.

On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As
amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks
an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees
based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that
during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's business practices violated unfair competition and
deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY
Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and
broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in
violation of various states' laws that govern car sales (i.e., the
issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of
the above, the Company's registration statements, prospectuses,
quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings,
press releases, and other statements and documents were materially
false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint
and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015.

On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its
entirety. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal. On June 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for
voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The motion was granted by the
Court on June 27, 2016. As the case has been dismissed, no loss is
deemed probable and no accrual related to this matter has been
recorded as of June 30, 2016.


TRUECAR INC: 2nd Status Conference in "Rose" Suit on October 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRUECAR, 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 second status
conference is scheduled for October 12, 2016, in the lawsuit by
Gordon Rose.

On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the
"California Consumer Class Action"). The complaint asserted claims
for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA
Litigation. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages,
interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. In
the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of
California consumers defined as "[a]ll California consumers who
purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate
during the applicable statute of limitations."

On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference,
which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16,
2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of
that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled
for and held on May 26, 2016.  By stipulation, the stay of
discovery has been continued until a second status conference,
which is scheduled for October 12, 2016.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended
complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as
the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Company
believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as
of June 30, 2016, as the Company does not believe a loss is
probable or reasonably estimable.


TWITTER INC: Misappropriates People's Identities, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action accuses Twitter of colluding with an
app-maker to misappropriate people's identities so game-players
could collect and trade profiles "of real-life people as if they
were baseball cards."

Lead plaintiff Jason Parker on August 24, sued Twitter and Hey
Inc., maker of the app "Famous: The Celebrity Twitter," claiming
both companies violate Alabama's Right of Publicity Act.  He sued
in San Francisco for a class of Alabama residents because both
tech companies are based in California. He seeks statutory damages
of $5,000 for each misappropriation of identity, destruction of
the names, photos and profiles, disgorgement of unjust profits,
and punitive damages.

Twitter agreed in June 2015 to give Hey unfettered access to
import its users' profile data into its gaming app, including
names and photos. Originally called "Stolen," the game "encouraged
players to 'buy,' 'own' and even steal' real-life people by using
virtual currency. But this version of the app received intense
public scrutiny," Parker says in the complaint.

The app disappeared in January this year after Massachusetts
Congresswoman Katherine Clark sent a letter to Twitter's CEO
urging him to suspend Hey's access until nonconsenting profiles
were removed and safeguards were put in place.

Less than a month later, the app re-emerged as "Famous." Rather
than urging players to buy and sell profiles, "Famous" had users
"invest in" people's profiles with "hearts," instead of virtual
currency.

"Aside from giving it a new name, the nature of the app and core
functionality remain exactly the same as before: the app still
displays real life Twitter users, including their full names and
photographs, without their consent, and players still collect
these real life people from the app's marketplace using virtual
currency," Parker says in the complaint.

The game gives each player a limited number of virtual credits for
free, allowing them to buy additional currency, or hearts, with
real money.

Parker says the app has imported profiles of tens of thousands of
people without their consent and exploits their identities for
profit.

The mobile game's developer, Siqi Chen, created another game in
2007 called "Friends for Sale," which allowed Facebook users to
buy and sell their friends' Facebook profiles.

"The pernicious nature of ownership was a reflection of Chen's
vision for the game," Parker says in the 17-page lawsuit.

In 2009, Chen sold "Friends for Sale" to the gaming company Zynga
for an undisclosed sum before launching his new Twitter-based
profile-collecting game in 2015.

Parker cites a January 2016 review of the app from the technology
news website, The Next Web, or TNW, written by Lauren Hockenson.
The article reports that the game "commoditizes users without
their knowledge" and "crafts a potential opening for harassment"
because people who "own" others' profiles can rename them.

Parker cites an interview with the app's founder, Chen, in which
he "admits the game wouldn't work if he had to obtain consent from
each user."

When asked if it would make more sense to feature people in the
game only with their permission, Chen allegedly said: "It doesn't
really work if we can't show you the people that you actually
follow and care about on Twitter."

Parker says he joined Twitter in May 2008 and discovered in July
this year that his profile, name and photo were uploaded to the
app and displayed for players to collect with virtual currency.
He seeks class certification for all Alabama residents whose
profiles have appeared in the app without their consent, an
injunction, and damages as noted above. He also wants Twitter
ordered to revoke Hey's access to its application programming
interface.

He is represented by Stewart Pollack with Edelson PC in San
Francisco.

Twitter did not respond on August 25 to an email request for
comment.

Hey founder and CEO Chen did not return a phone call seeking
comment.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Arguments Heard on Bids to Exclude Experts
------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Diego, heard arguments on August 26, from
attorneys on both sides of a class action claiming Trump
University tricked students into paying for bogus real estate
tips, as the lawyers tried to convince the judge that a host of
experts should be excluded from testifying.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a tentative order on
August 25, granting in part and denying in part motions from lead
class-action plaintiff Art Cohen and Republican presidential
nominee Donald Trump asking to bar witnesses retained for the
3-year-old case.

Cohen and the other plaintiffs sued Trump in 2013 under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act,
claiming he knowingly defrauded students out of thousands of
dollars when they paid for Trump University seminars based on the
claim that they would learn insider real estate secrets from
instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself.

The experts at issue at Friday's hearing were retained to
determine the educational value of a Trump University education.

Cohen's expert Paul Habibi found that a real estate education from
Trump University was worth nothing, while Trump's expert Alan
Wallace found a Trump University education did, in fact, have
value.

Both sides requested Curiel bar the other's expert from
testifying.

Also at issue were surveys created by Cohen's expert Michael
Kamins and economics expert DeForest McDuff, who is retained by
Trump.

Cohen attorney Jay Alvarez argued McDuff brought a new affirmative
economic analysis of damages that he called "untimely." Alvarez
said the plaintiffs have not retained an expert who can rebut the
"charts upon charts and graphs upon graphs" filed in relation to
McDuff's expert opinion on Trump University.

He asked Curiel to allow the plaintiffs to retain an economics
expert with the same education and background as McDuff to
challenge the methodology he used.

"This is something out of left field. [McDuff] is examining all
these different documents and surveys Mr. Habibi did not," Alvarez
said.

Trump's attorney David Kirman countered Alvarez's characterization
of McDuff's testimony and expertise, saying he is being used as a
"classic rebuttal" to Habibi finding a Trump University education
had zero value.

"If Mr. Habibi does not testify, neither will Dr. McDuff because
there will be nothing for him to rebut," Kirman pointed out.

Kirman also said Trump's experts -- Wallace and McDuff -- served
"completely different functions," as Wallace was not "equipped" to
prove the value of a Trump University education.

"Plaintiffs have only themselves to blame based on the quality of
the opinion they're giving," Kirman said.

Cohen attorney Daniel Pfefferbaum addressed Trump's motion to
exclude a survey conducted by Kamins, which he noted was being
used to support a finding of misrepresentation as to the
importance of Trump's celebrity in getting many of his "number one
fans" to attend and pay for Trump University.

Kirman claimed the survey goes beyond the class certification,
which was based on the alleged misrepresentation made through the
"university" title as well as the misrepresentation Trump
"handpicked" the seminar's real estate experts and mentors.

"We believe the court should exercise protecting the jury from
getting this 'junk science,'" Kirman said about the survey at
issue.

Pfefferbaum said Trump had an issue with a control group not being
used in the survey since Kamins only allowed those people
interested in attending Trump University participate. But that was
done on purpose, Pfefferbaum said, since Trump University spent $6
million a year on their marketing department and arguably directed
most of their efforts at getting Trump's fans to invest in the
real estate seminar.

"Defendants haven't identified any 'noise' that needed to be
controlled for. They don't have a concern about this study other
than they found case law excluding experts in other surveys who
didn't use a control," Pfefferbaum said.

Kirman countered that the plaintiffs' survey would be a "gross
expansion" of the terms of the class certification and would
require more trial time, which Curiel did not dispute.

"In a RICO case, you look at the scheme which relied on mail or
wire fraud. It seems it would become sterile if you excluded some
of the context, but I do think there is a line to be drawn between
context and backing up a dump truck of evidence in the case. My
question is: isn't that a proper outgrowth of the case
certification?" Curiel said.

Kirman disagreed and further reiterated he thought the "new facts
injected into the case" by plaintiffs' experts' testimony would
open Pandora's box.

Curiel said he would likely issue a written order on the matter on
August 29 or August 30.


U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: "Pixler" Suit Alleges Vehicle Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Abusamra-Pixler and Charles Pixler v. U-HAUL  International,
Inc., Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico General
Insurance Company, Dawn M. Grant Insurance Services, Inc., FCA US
LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC) and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC631370, (Cal. Super., August 23, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of
wrongfully obtained profits, injunctive relief, damages for
failure to provide insurance benefits, prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, economic and consequential
damages, general damages and such other and proper relief
resulting from product liability, negligence, breach of contract
and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

U-HAUL is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
assembling, and distributing trailers for rent, specifically the
1994 Trailer Bearing License Plate Number B730139 and VIN
14HUI2200RPRV7029 involved in a vehicular accident at 215 Freeway
in the County of Riverside, State of California. Susan Abusamra-
Pixler was injured in the accident. Plaintiff alleges that this
was a result of vehicle defect and malfunction. Plaintiff also
claims that Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico General
Insurance Company and Dawn M. Grant Insurance Services, Inc.
denied their insurance claims.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garo Mardirossian, Esq.
      Annen Akaragian, Esq.
      MARDIROSSIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      6311 Wilshire Boulevara
      Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001
      Telephone: (323) 653-6311
      FacsImile: (323) 651-5511

            - and -

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      1010 North Central Avenue
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      FacsImile: (877) 574-9411


UNITED AIRLINES: Court Takes Class Cert. Bid Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned FELICIA VIDRIO, the Plaintiff v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC. ET AL, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07985-PSG-
MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez takes
Plaintiff's motion for class certification under submission.

A ruling will be issued after full consideration of the submitted
pleadings.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Jackson, Esq.
          Kirk Hanson, Esq.
          JEFFREY JACKSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          2200 North Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 861 8833
          Facsimile: (713) 682 8866

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS
          San Francisco
          Telephone: 1-415-984-8912
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com


VALDEMAR 5108: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Veronica Lara, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Valdemar 5108 LLC d/b/a Fat Valdy's Bar &
Grill and Valdemar Rodriguez Escobar, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-
1058, (E.D. Wis., August 10, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys
fees, and/or any such other relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin Wage Laws.

Valdemar 5108 LLC operates Fat Valdy's Bar & Grill located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin with Valdemar Rodriguez Escobar as owner.
Lara has worked for Fat Valdy's as a server and bartender since
2013.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALENCE HEALTH: "Burns" Files Suit Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
NELLIE BURNS AND LAURA MACHALA v. VALENCE HEALTH, Case No. 3:16-
cv-02445-D (N.D. Tex., August 23, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Valence Health, Inc. operates in the healthcare services field.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Dortch, Esq.
     Maryssa J. Simpson, Esq.
     COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 100
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 712-9500
     Fax: (214) 712-9540
     E-mail: Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com
             Maryssa.Simpson@cooperscully.com

        - and -

     Tom Carse, Esq.
     CARSE LAWFIRM
     6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401
     Dallas, TX 75248
     Phone: (972) 503-6338
     Fax: (972) 503-6348
     E-mail: tom@carselaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Certification Bid in "Cintron" Suit Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case
entitled Nilsa Cintron v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-01314
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Amy
J. St. Eve.

The minute entry states that the "Plaintiff's motion for class
certification [2] is denied as moot in light of the filing of the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed in 15C5070."

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KYF87gs0


WALTER INVESTMENT: $24MM Settlement Up for Oct. 14 Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. 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 scheduled a hearing for October 14, 2016, to decide whether to
enter an order finally approving the proposed $24 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed.

The amended complaint named as defendants the Company, Mark
O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company
and the individual defendants made material misstatements or
omissions relating to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance
with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Ditech
Financial, the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint
sought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision
that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions
in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims
relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,
among other things, added certain allegations concerning the
Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, the
Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to the
third amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegations
and asserted various defenses.

On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the court granted in substantial part on
March 16, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into an
agreement to fully resolve all claims that were asserted or could
have been asserted in the action for a total payment of $24
million, which is inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and all
other costs associated with the proposed settlement. The proposed
settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides that
defendants, including the Company, are not making any admission of
liability or wrongdoing.

On June 13, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and directing that potential
members of the class be notified of the proposed settlement. The
court also scheduled a hearing for October 14, 2016 to decide
whether to enter an order finally approving the proposed
settlement.

In accordance with the settlement agreement, certain insurers of
the Company have paid the full amount of the proposed settlement
into an escrow account. The Company cannot provide any assurance
as to the outcome of the action or that such an outcome will not
have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business,
prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Settlement Hearing Moved to Aug. 30
------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. 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 hearing
for final approval of the settlement in the case, Circeo-Loudon v.
Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al., was originally scheduled for May
12, 2016, and was rescheduled for August 30, 2016.

Ditech Financial is subject to several putative class action
lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions allege
that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly received
benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form of
commissions for work not performed, services provided at a reduced
cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actual
cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits assert
various theories of recovery and seek remedies including
compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages,
return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief.

One such matter is Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et
al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16,
2014. A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in
the Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015. This settlement
received preliminary approval by the court on December 8, 2015 and
a hearing for final approval originally scheduled for May 12, 2016
has been rescheduled for August 30, 2016.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, all of the defendants
collectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to pay
damages to class members who timely file a claim, administrative
costs to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be
paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial
statements as of June 30, 2016.

The settlement agreement also provides that Ditech Financial and
its subsidiary, Green Tree Insurance Agency, Inc., and their
affiliates will be released from certain claims and may no longer
receive commissions on the placement of certain lender-placed
insurance for a period of five years commencing 120 days from the
effective date of the settlement. The Company expects that this
settlement, if approved by the court, will lead to the ultimate
resolution of the other putative class action lawsuits related to
lender-placed insurance to which Ditech Financial is currently
subject, although the proposed settlement does not apply to
potential claims by class members who opt out of the proposed
settlement.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, 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
plaintiffs in the case, In re Weight Watchers International, Inc.
Securities Litigation have not appealed a court decision and the
matter is now closed.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and Artal
Group S.A. ("Artal") in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints were purportedly
filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock,
no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30,
2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaints alleged that,
during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse
facts. The complaints alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs sought to recover unspecified
damages on behalf of the class members.

In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the
Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013
and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously
named as defendants.

On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a reply in
support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014.

On May 11, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion
to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and
the matter is now closed.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Motion to Dismiss "Roberts" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, 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's motion to dismiss the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight
Watchers International, Inc., is ongoing.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On
February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court, Sothern District of New York. On March 18,
2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as
a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and
app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached
its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2)
engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section
350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The
plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the
Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016. The Company
believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.


WENDCENTRAL CORP: "Solarek" Suit Seeks Damages and Reinstatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Solarek, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wendcentral Corp. d/b/a Wendpartners
Group, Integrated Food Systems, Inc., Wendstick, LLC, Lewis E.
Topper,  Jeffrey J. Coghlan and Doe Corporations 1-329,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02116 (N.D. Ohio, August 23, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawful deductions and
charge backs and unreimbursed expenses as well as reinstatement,
back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, emotional damages,
punitive damages and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Constitution.

WendPartners is a consortium of franchise groups controlled by
Lewis E. Topper, Jeffrey J. Coghlan with subsidiary entity
Wendstick, LLC, which operates the Wendy's restaurant located at
14180 Airport Highway in Swanton, Ohio where Plaintiff worked as
restaurant crew. Solarek was allegedly terminated because of his
autism.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      KIMBLE LAW, LLC
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: (614) 983-0361
      Fax: (614) 448-9408
      Email: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: "Louie" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Edward Louie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Whitewave Foods Company, Gregg L.
Engles, Joseph S. Hardin, Jr., Stephen L. Green, Doreen A. Wright,
Michelle Goolsby, W. Anthony Vernon, Anthony J. Magro, Danone S.A.
and July Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02132, (D.
Colo., August 23, 2016), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin Defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a
merger. It also seeks rescissory damages, costs of action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants allegedly issued materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy Statement in connection with
the proposed merger where WhiteWave Foods Company will be acquired
by Danone S.A. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, July Merger Sub
Inc. and stockholders of WhiteWave will receive $56.25 per share
in cash. Said Merger Agreement prohibits solicitation of
alternative proposals and severely limits options with other
potential buyers who may have better offers.

WhiteWave is a consumer packaged food and beverage company that
manufactures, markets, and sells branded plant-based foods and
beverages, coffee creamers and beverages, premium dairy products,
and organic produce. Gregg L. Engles, Joseph S. Hardin, Jr.,
Stephen L. Green, Doreen A. Wright, Michelle Goolsby, W. Anthony
Vernon and Anthony J. Magro are members of its Board of Directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      Post-Montgomery Ctr.
      One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

            - and -

      Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      Richard A. Maniskas
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Tel: (484) 588-5516


WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Merger Action Closed
------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 in the
case, In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, the court
has entered a proposed order submitted by the parties closing the
consolidated action for all purposes.

Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger of
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company and Towers Watson &
Co. were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v.
Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9,
2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB
(filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015),
Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31,
2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB
(filed on August 24, 2015).  The Stein action was voluntarily
dismissed on July 28, 2015.

These complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers
Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers
Watson stockholders. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the Merger, and generally alleged that Towers Watson's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson
stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis
through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate
and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices.  The complaints also alleged that Willis and
the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the Merger
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
Towers Watson directors.

On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building
Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters'
Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet
been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed
arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re
Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
11270-CB.

On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among
other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions
from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger
dated August 27, 2015.  On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on
October 19, 2015.  On December 14, 2015, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On April 1, 2016, the court consolidated the Mills action into the
consolidated action. On April 18, 2016, the court dismissed the
consolidated action as moot, set a briefing schedule for
plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs'
fee and expense application for June 28, 2016.

On April 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and
expense award of at least $1.7 million. On June 8, 2016,
defendants filed their opposition to the petition. After
negotiations, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
petition for a payment of $250,000 to plaintiffs' counsel by the
Company. On July 29, 2016, the court entered a proposed order
submitted by the parties closing the consolidated action for all
purposes.


WILLIS TOWERS: Still Defending Lawsuits Related to Stanford
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 lawsuits related to Stanford Financial
Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 13 actions are as follows:

   * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.
On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

   * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

   * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

   * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1,
2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of
Rupert to the Northern District of Texas.

On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September
16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's
denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action
discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as
of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was
held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth
Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint in Rupert.

   * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint
in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings
plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

   * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern
District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13,
2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert
action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert
action.

On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On
October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September
16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

   * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action.

On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on
April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern
District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District
of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to
Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until
further order of the court (in accordance with the court's
September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague, which stipulation was 'so
ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not
yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

   * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging
violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases
to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified
the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10,
2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying
and administratively closing that action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the
other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the
JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a
conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to
the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was
stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On
June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML
lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We
believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely
to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in Ranni or Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

   * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.
On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis.

On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to
Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court
on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion
to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory
appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis
filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider
the court's December 5 order.

On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended
Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion
to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory
appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court
granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary,
reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we
have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

                      Settlement-in-Principle

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to
the Stanford litigation matter. The Company has agreed to the
Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if
the settlement and the related bar orders are approved by the
Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-combined firm)
would be able to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection
from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred
approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet
provides that the parties understand and agree that there is no
admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company
expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the
matters alleged in the Stanford litigation.

Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet are Ralph
S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the
'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated
entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official
Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc. and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties have
agreed in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice
actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future
claims arising from or related to Stanford.

If the settlement, including the bar orders, is approved by the
Court and is not subject to further appeal, Willis North America
Inc. will make a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the
Receiver to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have
claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution
plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Company expects
the Actions to be stayed pending final approval of the settlement
agreement and bar orders. The timing of any final decision is
subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the
Court may decide not to approve the settlement.

The Settlement Term Sheet also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-
related litigation, and not just the Actions, including any
pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future.
Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the
settlement. The settlement is also subject to the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and other related documentation,
notice to Stanford's investor claimants, and approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.


WILLIS TOWERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Date Set in "Sanchez" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 set an October 2, 2017 trial date in the case by Elma
Sanchez, et al.

On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action suit against the California Public Employees'
Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior
Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added as defendants several members of CalPERS' Board of
Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities, Towers
Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin
('Towers Perrin').

Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long
Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC
Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly
resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and
2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the
long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85%
Increase').

The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single
cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence
relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS
relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004.

Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC
Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and
breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to
make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset
of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions
in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers
Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end
of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85%
Increase.

In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by
CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the
complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The certified class as currently
defined includes those long term care policy holders whose
policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter
set an October 2, 2017 trial date.

In May, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The
court has agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary
judgment which will be heard on February 3, 2017. The court has
also agreed to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and
CalPERS to decertify or modify the class.

To date, the plaintiffs have not identified any amount of damages
or any basis for calculating damages they are seeking against
defendants, including Towers Perrin. For this reason and given the
stage of the proceedings, the Company is currently unable to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to continue
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal in Securities Case Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
YELP 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 an appeal is pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain
of its officers for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases
were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on
April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
May 21, 2015.

On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended
complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company's
favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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


YELP INC: $600,000 in Meal & Rest Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
YELP 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 $0.6 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit is currently awaiting final court approval.

On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The
lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest
periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24
customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company
reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments
in the aggregate amount of up to approximately $0.6 million, which
the court preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement
is currently awaiting final court approval.


YELP INC: $200,000 Accord in Employee Suit Awaits Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELP 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 $0.2 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit is currently awaiting final court approval.

On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former
Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that
Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages,
allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and
asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief.

On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act.

In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to
settle this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to
approximately $0.2 million. Once finalized, the settlement will be
subject to court approval.


ZARA USA: Faces "Rose" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Zara USA Inc.
and Does 1-10.

The case is captioned Devin Rose, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Zara USA Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No.
2:16-cv-06229-RSWL-RAO (C.D. Cal., August 22, 2016).

Zara USA Inc. is a clothing and accessories retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark John Geragos, Esq.
      Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
      GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC
      644 South Figeuroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
      E-mail: mark@geragos.com
              meiselas@geragos.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *