CAR_Public/160915.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 185




                            Headlines


A & I TRANSPORT: Faces Labor Law Class Action in California
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Perez-White" Suit
ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
AGROSTUDIES: Foreign Students File Suit Over Farm Training Course
AIR CANADA: Sept. 16 Class Action Authorization Hearing Set

ALON BLUE: To Pay Minority Shareholders in Class Action NIS6.3MM
AMBAC FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Pirinea" Action in New York
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 6 Hardware Problem
ARKANSAS: Sherwood Court Sued for Imprisoning People for Debt
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defending Suit Over Hep B Study

ATLANTIC CAPITAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
ATOSSA GENETICS: Says Hearing on Case Appeal Not Yet Set
AUSPEX: Averts Shareholder Class Action Over $3.5BB Teva Merger
AUTHENTEC INC: November 17 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Willard" Suit

BANKSIA: Supreme Court Approves $13.25MM Class Action Settlement
BAPTIST HEALTH: "Whitley" Suit Removed to Arkansas Dist. Ct.
BARRETT BUSINESS: Defends Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
BBX CAPITAL: Accord in NJ Tax Sales Case Awaits Final OK
BRENT COON: Humana et al. Sue Asbestos Lawyers

BRUCE SHEAR: Court Narrows Claims in "MAZ Partners" Suit
CANADA: Ontario Solicits Public Input on Future of Huronia
CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
CATAMARAN HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Smith" Suit
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Has Until Sept. 29 to Answer Class Suit

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Set-Top Box Class Action Faces Roadblock
CR BARD: More Than 600 IV Filter Lawsuits Pending in Court
CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Sallustro" Underway
CVS CAREMARK: 1st Cir. Revives Suit Over Vit E Supplements
DALLAS CENTRAL: 326 Colonial Suit Alleges Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: 2015 Market Center Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DALLAS APPRAISAL: 3010 State Street Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: 3146 Northgate Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: First Hearing in Fraud Class Action Held
DISNEY: Loses Bid to Delay "No Poaching" Class Action

EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Court Allows Sodekson to Amend Complaint
EAST COLUMBUS: Court Trims Claims in EOCC Sexual Harassment Suit
ENERGY RECOVERY: Schubert Probes Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach
EZCORP INC: Securities Litigation Moved Into Discovery Stage
EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Securities Case Pending

FOODSTATE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Holt" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Throttle Bodies
FXCM: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Swiss Nat'l Bank Turmoil
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Last Two Ignition Switch Bellwether Cases
HARVEST NATURAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

HARVEST NATURAL: Garland Sues Over Share Purchase Agreement
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "McCloskey" Suit
ITT TECHNICAL: Employees File Class Action Over Shutdown
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Strikes Two Upcoming Talc Trials
KOCH FOODS: Fixed Chicken Prices for 8 Yrs, Chicago Suit Claims

LIONS GATE: "Teamsters" Sues Against Shady Merger Deal
LOUISIANA CHILDREN'S: "Tillman" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Malvern Suit Moved to E.D. of Pennsylvania
MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Suit in Tel Aviv
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Faces Criminal Prosecution

MARK DRISCOLL: Judge Dismisses Civil Racketeering Lawsuit
MASTERCARD INC: Faces $18.6BB Lawsuit in UK Over Excessive Fees
MDL 2196: UFP Technologies Received $432,000 Settlement
MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity to Defendants
MEDIVATION: Directors Selling Company Too Cheaply, Suit Says

MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Faces Airbag Litigation
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of LFR Suit Under Appeal
MORGAN TSVANGIRAI: Traders Mull Class Action Over Riots
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bid for More Time to Seek Rehearing Pending

NIANTIC INC: Fla. Condo Assoc. Sues Over Pokemon Go Pokestop
OCWEN LOAN: "Delgado" Suit Sent to Trial on Existence of Contract
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Racketeering Lawsuit
PAUL MICHAEL: Faces "Schacher" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Class Action vs. Radiancy Pending in D.C. Court

PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Underway in California Action
PJT PARTNERS: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit by Sept. 23
PRECISE PAYROLL: Faces "Goebel" Suit in E.D. of New York
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Dismisses "Hallihan" Suit
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Expert Calls on Gov't to Help Seaweed Farmers

RACKSPACE HOSTING: Law Firm Probes Breach of Fiduciary Claims
RALPHS GROCERY: Sued by Laface for Not Giving Seats to Cashiers
RELIABLE REXALL: Faces "Oliveira" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RESOURCE AMERICA: Faces "Gansman" Actions in Pennsylvania Courts
RHONDA J. SAUNDERS: Calvary Suit Moved to S.D.W.Va.

RICHMOND AMERICAN: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Blasting
RJ REYNOLDS: Settles Class Action Over Camel Cash-C Notes
ROSARIO'S INC: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
SAHOTACORP: Sued Over Regent Hotel Maintenance Issues
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Corban" Case Still Pending

SONY CORP: Settlement with PlayStation 3 Buyers Has Tentative OK
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: $7MM Settlement Granted Final Approval
ST CLOUD STATE: Sept. 21 Pretrial Conference Set in Title IX Case
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Blames Muddy Waters for Share Price Drop
STANDARD INNOVATIONS: Faces Privacy Suit in Chicago

STATE FARM: Two Suits Over Labor Costs Certified as Class Action
STERICYCLE INC: Class Cert. Bid in W.D. Pa. Suit Remains Pending
STERICYCLE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Amended "Kader" Complaint Pending
TH HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: "Frisco" Suit Remains Pending in Fla.
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Provides Indemnity to "Mathews" Defendant
UBER: 9th Cir. Sends Background Check Claims Into Arbitration
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Allergan Shareholder Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Salix Shareholder Suit Pending

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Synergetics Case Settlement Has Final OK
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Stay Ontario Suit Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: RICO Class Actions Pending in New Jersey
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Contact Lens Suits
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Certify Afexa Class Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Racketeering Class Action
VANCOUVER ENGLISH: Students Mull Class Action Over Sudden Closure
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Securities Litigation Remains Pending in N.Y.

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument Set for Oct. 7 in Appeal Bid
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Engineer Pleads Guilty in Emissions Cheating Case
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Nears Settlement Agreement with Vehicle Dealers
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 40% of Vehicle Owners Seek Emissions Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Proposed Settlements Boon for Some Dealers

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Solicitor Taps Hausfeld to Help in Ireland Case
WSFS FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit
XBIOTECH INC: Filed Demurrer in California Action
YIRENDAI LTD: "Seong" Sues Over Drop in Yirendai Securities
YIRENDAI LTD: Faces Class Action, Oct. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deadlines Held in Abeyance

* CFTC, FIA Object to CFPB Arbitration Proposal
* Maurice Blackburn Lawyer Targets Queensland Poker Machines
* Securities Class Actions Rise to 119 in First Half of 2016


                            *********


A & I TRANSPORT: Faces Labor Law Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
contrary to popular belief, a truck driver's responsibilities are
far more complex than sitting in the driver's seat and pushing the
gas pedal.  There are responsibilities for the cargo, ensuring the
continuing operational safety of the rig, and the challenges
inherent with piloting an oversized vehicle safely in concert with
smaller vehicles.  When California labor code violations are
alleged against a trucker's employer, the insinuation of
mistreatment against these unsung heroes serves to amplify the
unfairness.

A class action California labor lawsuit has recently been launched
against A & I Transport Inc., an employer based in the Golden
State.  Various allegations against the employer include, but are
not limited to a failure to pay the required minimum wages for
non-driving tasks.  Those tasks include the inspection of cargo
and vehicle prior to, and following the actual transport of goods,
and simply waiting for loads to be ready for transport, or so it
is alleged.  Plaintiffs claim they should be on the clock and paid
for time spent waiting for a load, and while conducting
inspections.

Instead, drivers were paid on a piece-rate basis, or so it is
alleged.

The California and labor law class action also alleges the
defendant failed to properly record all hours worked, and thus
plaintiffs were not paid their minimum wages in accordance to
requirements entrenched in California labor employment law.  It is
also alleged that drivers were not provided their meal periods and
rest breaks, as provided under the law.

The California labor code states that non-exempt, hourly workers
are to be granted regular paid, uninterrupted rest periods and a
30-minute uninterrupted meal break commencing not later than the
beginning of the fifth hour of work in a day.  Plaintiffs allege
such breaks were not provided, and compensation for the missed
breaks was not forthcoming.

The California labor lawsuit is Arturo Samaniego v. A & I
Transport, Inc. Case No. 16-cv-01894, filed July 26 of this year
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Cruz.

The four-count lawsuit alleges unfair competition, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide accurate itemized statements,
and failure to provide wages when due.  Mr. Samaniego, who no
longer works for the defendant, hopes to serve as the lead
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that represents all class
participants similarly affected.


ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Perez-White" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted in part and denied, in part, the
motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the case captioned
KATHY PEREZ-WHITE, MARTHA SANTOS, and BARBARA RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY OF NEW YORK P.C., LAWRENCE
JAEGER, and NICOLE MAULELLA, Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 4858 (PGG)
(S.D.N.Y.).

In the putative collective and class action, Kathy Perez-White,
Martha Santos, and Barbara Rodriguez asserted claims against the
defendants, Advanced Dermatology of New York P.C., Lawrence
Jaeger, and Nicole Maulella, under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, for failure to pay overtime
compensation.  The plaintiffs also asserted claims for failure to
provide proper wage notices and statements, breach of contract,
failure to pay straight time, uniform reimbursement violations,
failure to timely pay wages, and retaliation.

The defendants moved for the entry of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 68
judgment as to certain claims, and for the dismissal of other
claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

With respect to the plaintiffs' overtime and straight time claims
-- the Amended Complaint's First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Claims
for Relief -- the defendants argued that judgment should be
entered for the plaintiffs and their claims dismissed as moot in
light of the defendants' tender of full relief.

Judge Gardephe, however, found that the defendants' September 2,
2015 offer of judgment did not offer the plaintiffs full monetary
relief and that, while the defendants' January 27, 2016 letter
offered the plaintiffs increased amounts, that letter did not
state that the defendants consent to having judgment entered
against them, nor did it acknowledge the plaintiffs' claim for
attorneys' fees and costs.  Accordingly, Judge Gardephe cannot
find that the defendants' September 2, 2015 offer of judgment and
later correspondence have rendered the First, Second, Fourth and
Fifth Claims for Relief moot.

The Amended Complaint's Third Claim for Relief alleged that the
defendants violated NYLL sections 195(1) and (3) by failing to
provide the plaintiffs with required wage notices and statements.
The defendants contended that this claim "must be dismissed as
there is no private right of action under NYLL section 195."

Judge Gardephe held that the plaintiffs may only assert a damages
claim against the defendants for violating NYLL sections 195(1)
and (3) if those violations occurred after April 9, 2011, the
effective date of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.  The judge found
that Rodriguez began her employment with the defendants before
April 2011, and she conceded that she does not have a claim under
NYLL section 195(1)(a) and only has a claim for the defendants'
failure to provide her with accurate wage statements under NYLL
section 195(3).  Thus, Judge Gardephe granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the Third Claim for Relief as to Rodriguez's
claim under NYLL section 195(1)(a), but the motion will otherwise
be denied.

The plaintiffs' Sixth Claim for Relief alleged that the defendants
failed to reimburse Perez-White and Rodriguez and others similarly
situated for uniform purchases.  Judge Gardephe, however, found
that the Miscellaneous Wage Order applies to the plaintiffs, and
that the plaintiffs have not alleged that their uniform costs were
such that their pay fell below the minimum wage.  Thus, the judge
dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for uniform cost reimbursement.

The Amended Complaint's Seventh Claim for Relief alleged that the
defendants violated NYLL section 191(3) by failing to timely pay
Perez-White for her last three days of employment.  Judge Gardepha
found that although Perez-White frames her claim as one for
failure to pay timely wages under NYLL section 191(3), it is clear
that the gravamen of her claim is that the defendants "failed to
provide [her] with full payment."  Because there is doubt as to
whether NYLL section 191 provides a remedy for unpaid wages, as
opposed to wages not timely paid, Judge Gardepha dismissed the
Seventh Claim for Relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Gardephe's September 6, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/vyRmqC from
Leagle.com.

Kathy Perez-White, Barbara Rodriguez, Martha Santos, Raquel Cooper
are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          SERRINS FISHER LLP
          222 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (646)741-3490
          Fax: (212)233-3801

Advanced Dermatology of New York P.C., Lawrence Jaeger, Nicole
Maulella are represented by:

          Jamie Scott Felsen, Esq.
          Joseph Martin Labuda, Esq.
          MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Tel: (516)328-8899
          Fax: (516)328-0082


ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Record reports that two direct service workers have
filed a class-action lawsuit against their former New Orleans
employer alleging that they were not paid overtime.

Beverly York and Linda Wilson filed a complaint on behalf of other
persons similarly situated on July 7 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Advocates for
Juvenile and Adults Rights Inc. alleging violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek in order to
complete their job assignments without receiving overtime
premiums.  The plaintiffs holds Advocates for Juvenile and Adults
Rights Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to
pay overtime compensation and failed to maintain proper records or
pay wages for travel time.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an award for
damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, penalties and
interest and for all other legal and/or equitable relief to which
they may be entitled.  They are represented by Derek M. Mercer of
Mercer Law Firm LLC in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-12487


AGROSTUDIES: Foreign Students File Suit Over Farm Training Course
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Blumetti, writing for Haaretz, reports that when Abdul Aziz
Diop, an agriculture student from Senegal, signed up for a work-
study course in Israel, he thought he'd be participating in an
advanced educational program that would teach him about the Jewish
state's cutting-edge farming methods.  Instead, he says, he was
given a plastic bucket and a crop-picking quota.

"Early on it was clear that this was not a practical curriculum
but simply a plan to hire cheaply and take advantage of people,"
says the 25-year-old Diop, who claims in a sworn affidavit that
the program he signed up for boiled down to nine-hour days in the
fields under the watchful eye of supervisors authorized to dock
pay and expel anyone who dared to protest.

Over the last decade, thousands of foreign students have been
brought to Israel from around the world under at least six
programs that promise to teach them practical agricultural skills.
Mr. Diop was one of the participants in the largest of these
programs, Agrostudies, which has brought more than 4,500 students
to Israel since 2008 -- mainly from Africa, Southeast Asia and
South America.

But last year, Mr. Diop and other fellow students banded together
with Kav LaOved, an Israeli NGO that assists foreign workers and
asylum seekers, and filed a class-action lawsuit seeking more than
100 million shekels (about $264,000) in damages from Agrostudies,
alleging that the program had defrauded its participants.

In an interview with Haaretz, Agrostudies officials denied all the
accusations, saying the program complies with Israeli laws and
provides real training to foreign students.

Noa Shauer, coordinator of foreign workers at Kav LaOved, says she
first learned about the program during a visit to a moshav in the
Arava desert in 2014.  She was there investigating allegations of
abuse suffered by Thai workers employed as laborers by the Israeli
farm industry.  In the process, she met two students workers who
had been recruited from other Southeast Asian countries.

After inquiring within agricultural communities across Israel, Ms.
Shauer began to view Agrostudies and programs like it as
duplicitous new mechanisms for labor recruitment.  "Farmers know
exactly what's going on with the students.  From the testimonies
we've received, there's no difference between the way Thai workers
and the students are treated, except that [students] are here for
less time and have less rights," Ms. Shauer says.

The class-action suit filed in July 2015 in the Lod District Court
claims that the program falsely represents itself as an academic
institution.  It includes sworn affidavits from more than a dozen
former Agrostudies students who state that recruitment officials
misrepresented the program and that the program itself didn't
provide any real education, exploiting the participants as
laborers instead.

Mr. Diop, who is the spokesman for the group, declared in his
affidavit that "there was no relationship between school and work;
we didn't learn anything about managing a farm or the growth
process, nothing about irrigation systems or agricultural
technology."  Agrostudies officials argue that students received
substantial training in all fields of operation.

In response to the allegations of false advertising, two top
Agrostudies officials, who asked not to be named, said that "the
terms and conditions of the program clearly state that we are not
a university. We do not promise anything regarding academia."

"Our purpose is to take those students who have already gained the
theoretical knowledge in university and bring them to Israel to
practice modern agriculture," the officials told Haaretz.  The
officials say it's possible that some of the students were unaware
of how difficult large-scale farming really is, with a five-day
workweek of hard, physical labor.

The lawsuit argues that Agrostudies' mission statement, methods
and use of academic language are deeply misleading.  For 11
months, students work five days a week -- what the mission
statement refers to as "learning by doing," whereby Israeli
farmers "are able to pass on their knowledge and experience in
commercial farming."

On the sixth day, students convene in a classroom for theoretical
studies.

Mr. Diop stated in his affidavit that those who taught theory did
not have an academic background of any kind, or even a college
degree.

Moreover, Mr. Diop says that the practical studies lacked any
guidance or structured learning after the initial training.  "All
we did was simple, physical labor.  All that mattered to [the]
farmers was to harvest as much as possible," his affidavit says.
"All we do is pick, pick, pick.  There was no education.  No
guidance."

Admission to the Agrostudies program costs nearly 15,000 shekels
between tuition and one-time fees, not including airfare.  The
lawsuit claims that Agrostudies acts as a recruitment agency for
the farm industry, and the tuition and administrative costs are
nothing but masked broker fees.

Recruitment or manpower agencies have often been at the center of
controversy over Israel's use of foreign laborers due to the high
fees they charge, which often leave workers deeply indebted.

Under a 2011 agreement between Israel and Thailand -- the country
from which the overwhelming majority of Israel's migrant farm
workers hails -- laborers must be hired directly by their
employers, rather than through a recruiter.  The lawsuit against
Agrostudies claims the program sidesteps this agreement, as well
as laws that prohibit exchange students from working in Israel.
The Agrostudies officials rejected the accusations, saying that
they have a special permit from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the
Agriculture Ministry and the Interior Ministry.  "We work under
their guidance to operate this program," they said.

According to the lawsuit, students were required to pick up to 2.4
tons of produce a day when in the fields.  The complainants say
they worked for minimum wage and had their salary docked if the
yield was low.  Money for accommodation, income tax and insurance
costs was also deducted from their paycheck.

The plaintiffs allege that any protests could have lead to their
expulsion from the program and deportation from Israel.
"If we do something to the dismay of farmers we are punished by
not being allowed to work and not being paid," says
Mouhamed Diouf, a Senegalese student, in his affidavit, adding
that "farmers are constantly threatening to send us back to our
country."

Another Senegalese student, Lamine Nidaye, states that he
witnessed the arrest of a female Senegalese student who was
detained for several days and then deported because she failed to
apologize for participating in a labor strike for fair wages.
The Agrostudies officials acknowledged that farmers had withheld
pay, but added they had stepped in to stop the practice.  They
said that there had been disciplinary issues, but insisted these
were increasingly rare and always mediated by the student's home
university.  "There was not a single student who was unhappy with
the program that we didn't console immediately, offer to refund
tuition or help in any way," they told Haaretz.  Mr. Diop, who is
now back in Senegal, was one of those offered a refund, but he
refused it, they said.

The program's website includes testimonials of graduates' success
stories featuring alumni starting their own farms or receiving
agricultural grants.  "The only bad press we get is in Israel.
Everywhere else we get good reviews," the officials said.
The representatives from Agrostudies are confident the lawsuit
will get dismissed, and are counting on the support of Israeli and
foreign diplomats who are expected to take the stand for the
defense.

But Mr. Shauer claims this support is politically motivated, as
officials are likely to turn a blind eye to worker exploitation to
foster diplomatic ties.  "It's not easy for Israeli ambassadors to
create lasting bonds with countries like Nepal and South Sudan --
programs like [Agrostudies] help," she says.
A preliminary hearing in the case was held in March and witnesses
will be heard in December, according to officials from Kav LaOved
and Agrostudies.


AIR CANADA: Sept. 16 Class Action Authorization Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 16, 2016, the proposed representative plaintiff will
be presenting his proposed class action against Air Canada on
behalf of all Canadian consumers who purchased a Flight Pass from
Air Canada's website on August 25-28, 2015, and thereafter had
their Flight Passes revoked by Air Canada due to an alleged
pricing error.

The hearing will take place on Sept. 16 at the Superior Court of
Quebec in the District of Montreal.  At the hearing, the Court
will be deciding whether this proposed class action will be
"authorized" as a class action.  If the action is "authorized",
the case will then proceed to a trial on the merits.

For more information, please visit
http://evolinklaw.com/air-canada-flight-pass-class-action/

Mr. Simon Lin of Evolink Law Group is the putative class counsel,
with assistance from Mr. Jeremie John Martin.


ALON BLUE: To Pay Minority Shareholders in Class Action NIS6.3MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. disclosed that on August 28, 2016,
the District Court in Lod, Israel gave its final approval for the
proposed debt arrangement between the Company and its financial
creditors and shareholders under Section 350 of the Israeli
Companies Law, 5759-1999, as revised per our announcement on
August 10, 2016.

In accordance with the District Court's final approval, the
aggregate sum payable to the Company's minority shareholders upon
closing will be NIS6,328,500.  The total amount of reward and/or
legal fees payable to the representatives of the minority
shareholders in court who submitted the class action and the
opposition on behalf of the minority shareholders, and legal
expenses for two minority shareholders who opposed the debt
arrangement, will be NIS546,500.

The Company will provide an updated timeline for closing
accordingly.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Pirinea" Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial 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 intends
to defend against the case, Joseph Pirinea, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambac Financial Group,
Inc., Diana N. Adams, David Trick, Jeffrey S. Stein and Nader
Tavakoli (United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Civil Action No.16-cv-05079-RMB, filed on June 28, 2016).

On Sept. 13, 2016, Judge Richard M. Berman entered an order
adjourning a case conference until October 20, 2016 at 10 a.m.

On Aug. 29, Ori Wilbush filed papers asking the Court to appoint
him to serve as lead plaintiff(s).

A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Ambac
and certain of its present and former officers and directors, for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The suit
purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's securities from
November 13, 2013 through June 30, 2015. It alleges, among other
things, that defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding Ambac's (a) risk management policies and
procedures, (b) credit mitigation strategies, (c) internal
controls over financial reporting, and (d) loss exposures on its
public finance bond portfolio. In particular, the suit alleges
that defendants did not sufficiently disclose Ambac's exposure to
bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, despite allegedly
being aware of significant risks associated with those exposures.
Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com -- at Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, represents Mr. Pirinea.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 6 Hardware Problem
------------------------------------------------------------
Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that repair guide
website iFixit published a detailed blog post discussing an issue
plaguing a growing number of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus users.
Referred to as "Touch Disease," a hardware problem causes iPhone
displays to become unresponsive and feature a thin gray flickering
line along the top.

Now, a trio of iPhone users have filed a class action lawsuit
against Apple over the issue, claiming that Apple has refused to
repair devices that are affected for free.

The class action suit was filed by Todd Cleary of California,
Jun Bai of Delaware, and Thomas Davidson of Pennsylvania in the
U.S. District Court of Northern California.  Specifically, the
complaint accuses Apple of violating the consumer fraud statutes
in place in California, as well as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

As for what the plaintiffs are demanding, the paperwork shows
requests for Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace iPhones
affected by Touch Disease, as well as to extend the warranties for
all iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus users for issues related to Touch
Disease.  The plaintiffs are also requesting unspecified damages,
we well.

From the filing (via MR):

"Apple has long been aware of the defective iPhones.  Yet,
notwithstanding its longstanding knowledge of this design defect,
Apple routinely has refused to repair the iPhones without charge
when the defect manifests.  Many other iPhone owners have
communicated with Apple's employees and agents to request that
Apple remedy and/or address the Touchscreen Defect and/or
resultant damage at no expense.  Apple has failed and/or refused
to do so.

"As a result of Apple's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners of the iPhones, including Plaintiffs,
have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property
and/or value.  The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed
by Apple were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial
aggravating circumstances."

iFixit report claimed that the Touch Disease issue could be so
widespread that "almost every" iPhone 6 and 6 Plus could be
"ticking bombs just waiting to act up."  Whether or not that's
true remains to be seen, but even if it's remotely the case, Apple
could have a relatively big problem on its hands.  On the other
hand, this could just be another attempt by people to make a quick
buck by hitting Apple with a lawsuit.


ARKANSAS: Sherwood Court Sued for Imprisoning People for Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Black Agenda Report, the district court in Sherwood,
Arkansas, is in gross violation of a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that it is unconstitutional to imprison people for debt,
according to a class action suit filed by the Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law and the Arkansas ACLU.  Much like the
pattern of abuse documented by the U.S. Justice Department in
Ferguson, Missouri, Sherwood derives as much as 12 percent of its
revenues from "imposing mounting fines or fees tied to very low
level offenses," said Lawyers Committee president Kristen Clarke.
One of Ms. Clarke's clients wound up spending 25 days in jail and
owing nearly $3,000 to the courts because she bounced a $28.93
check.  "Our hope is that we can bring national attention to this
problem, and that we might inspire action by the Congress to
breathe life back into this Supreme Court ruling," said
Ms. Clarke.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defending Suit Over Hep B Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead 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 Company and
certain of its officers and directors have been named as
defendants in a consolidated class action pending before the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v.
Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014),  asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D.
Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed
Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
facts underlying the securities claims.

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar.
16, 2015).

Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.  The Company believes it
has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend itself
in this matter.  The Company makes provisions for liabilities when
it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the
amount can be reasonably estimated.  No such liability has been
recorded related to this matter.  The Company does not expect this
matter to have a material effect on its Consolidated Financial
Statements. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees
related to this matter or any other legal matters, the Company's
recognizes such costs as incurred.


ATLANTIC CAPITAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
--------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a final
fairness hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2016.  No further
updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in
connection with the acquisition of First Security.  Knutson v.
First Security Group, Inc. et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the
Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First
Security, the members of its board of directors, and Atlantic
Capital as defendants.  Meade v. Kramer, et al., filed April 24,
2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names
First Security, the members of its board of directors, FSGBank,
Atlantic Capital, and the Bank as defendants.

Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the
First Security directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger
agreement and that the other named defendants, including Atlantic
Capital, aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Among other relief, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief preventing the parties from consummating the merger,
rescission of the transactions completed by the merger agreement,
an award of attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiffs and other
forms of relief.

On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating
these two suits under the caption In re First Security Group, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On June 25, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated class action
complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Chattanooga.
The amended complaint repeats many of the same allegations of the
original complaints but also makes additional allegations with
respect to disclosures contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. On July 24, 2015, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On August 25, 2015, First Security, Atlantic Capital and the other
named defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the above-
described lawsuits. The MOU agreed on the terms of a settlement of
the lawsuits, including the dismissal with prejudice of the suit
captioned In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
and a release of all claims that were made or could have been made
therein against all of the defendants. The parties have agreed on
a Stipulation of Settlement, a Proposed Order on Notice and
Scheduling, a Proposed Notice to class members, and a Proposed
Final Order and those documents have been submitted to the
Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in
the MOU, the parties have agreed on an amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses, $265,000, that Plaintiffs' counsel will request from
the Court and to which the defendants will not object. The
proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final
approval of the proposed settlement by the Court after notice is
given to shareholders.

The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on May 23,
2016 and certified a settlement class as owners of First Security
common stock from March 25, 2015 through October 31, 2015.
Defendants and their affiliates are excluded from the settlement
class. The Court also approved the notice to the class, which has
been sent to the First Security shareholders.  A final fairness
hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2016, at which time
objections to the settlement, if any, would be heard and the
attorneys' fees issue would be decided.

There can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlement in all respects and if the court does not approve the
proposed settlement, the proposed settlement as contemplated by
the MOU could become void. The settlement will not affect the
amount of the merger consideration that First Security
shareholders received in the merger.

Plaintiffs' Counsel:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

          - and -

     Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004

Counsel for First Security Group, Inc., D. Michael Kramer, Larry
D. Mauldin, William F. Grant III, Adam G. Hurwich, Kelly P.
Kirkland, Robert R. Lane, Henchy R. Enden, William C. Hall and
Carol H. Jackson:

     Britt K. Latham, Esq.
     Jamie L. Brown, Esq.
     BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
     150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
     Nashville, TN 37201

Counsel for Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc.:

     C. Crews Townsend, Esq.
     Meredith C. Lee, Esq.
     MILLER & MARTIN, PLLC
     832 Georgia Avenue
     Suite 1200 Volunteer Building
     Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289

Garden City Group, LLC serves as claims administrator.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Says Hearing on Case Appeal Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing for a class
action appeal has not been set.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our
November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that
all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and
certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the
Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements
and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that
we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent
press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen
collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT
device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our
common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013,
inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount."

"On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6,
2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims
against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the
Court entered a final order of dismissal.

"On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015,
plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants filed
an answering brief on April 13, 2015 and plaintiffs fileda reply
brief in support of their appeal on May 18, 2015. A hearing for
the appeal has not been set."

The Company believes this complaint is without merit and plan to
defend ourselves vigorously; however failure to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations and financial condition.


AUSPEX: Averts Shareholder Class Action Over $3.5BB Teva Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Greene, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Auspex
Pharmaceuticals Inc. shareholders can't proceed with a would-be
class action challenging the company's $3.5 billion merger with
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Delaware Chancery Court
ruled Aug. 25 (Larkin v. Shah, 2016 BL 277097, Del. Ch., No.
10918-VCS, 8/25/16).

The shareholder plaintiffs alleged that venture capital firms that
owned Auspex stock and directors that had ties to the firms pushed
through the all-cash transaction at the expense of other
stockholders.

Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III dismissed the claims,
finding that the case didn't involve a controlling shareholder
that tainted the deal.  He found that even if a controller had
existed, the plaintiffs couldn't show the venture capital firms
had a conflict of interest.

The court also concluded that absent a controlling stockholder,
the deal must be reviewed under the deferential business judgment
rule, citing two recent Delaware Supreme Court rulings -- Corwin
v. KKR Fin. Holdings LLC, 2015 BL 323544 (193 SLD, 10/6/15) and
Singh v. Attenborough, 2016 BL 145197 .

This ruling marks the second time in as many days that the
chancery court has applied Corwin and Singh, which make it harder
for plaintiffs to succeed in certain merger challenges.  The court
applied the two cases Aug. 24 in dismissing a shareholder lawsuit
over C&J Energy Services Inc.'s $2.86 billion merger with a unit
of Nabors Industries Ltd.

Corwin and Singh hold that where a transaction is approved by a
fully informed, uncoerced stockholder vote, the business judgment
standard of review--which defers to corporate decision-making--
must be applied unless challenged on the basis of waste.

Two-Step Merger

Teva, one of the largest generic drug producers in the world, in
2015 acquired Auspex in a two-step merger.  Under the transaction,
a buyer purchases a majority of a public company's shares through
a tender offer, then completes the back-end of the merger by
acquiring the remaining shares.

Because more than half of Auspex's outstanding shares were
tendered to Teva, the merger occurred under Delaware's two-step
merger statute -- General Corporation Law Section 251(h) --
without a stockholder vote.

Judge Slights applied a July chancery court ruling -- In re
Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig. -- that provided that
stockholders' acceptance of a tender offer under Section 251(h)
has the same cleansing effect as a stockholder vote in favor of
the transaction (128 SLD, 7/5/16).


AUTHENTEC INC: November 17 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. regarding the AuthenTec,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation:

LEGAL NOTICE

If You Owned AuthenTec, Inc. Common Stock as of October 4, 2012,
You May Be Entitled to Settlement Benefits

What Is This About?

A class action lawsuit concerning the 2012 acquisition of
AuthenTec, Inc. ("AuthenTec") for $8.00 per share has been settled
(the "Settlement").  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
AuthenTec's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the sale of AuthenTec to Apple Inc.  As part of
the Settlement, those shareholders who owned AuthenTec common
stock as of October 4, 2012 may be entitled to receive additional
payment through a cash-payment common fund ("Common Fund").  The
Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.  The Court has not
decided who is right and who is wrong.  Instead, the parties have
decided to settle their dispute.

Am I a Member of the Class?

Unless you are a named defendant in the settled litigation or one
of their affiliates, as that term is defined in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement dated July 14, 2016
(the "Stipulation"), or you exclude yourself from the Settlement,
you are a member of the Class if you held AuthenTec common stock
any time between and including July 27, 2012 and October 4, 2012.

What Are the Settlement Benefits for the Class?

A $10 million common fund ("Common Fund") has been established for
the benefit of Class Members.  After the deduction from the $10
million fund of notice and administration expenses, any attorneys'
fees and expenses awarded by the Court, any service awards to the
Plaintiffs, and taxes, the remainder of the Common Fund will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to Class Members who both owned
AuthenTec common stock on October 4, 2012 and submit timely and
valid Proof of Claim forms.

How Do I Participate in the Settlement Benefits?

To participate in the Common Fund cash payment, you must mail or
submit online a completed Proof of Claim form by December 21,
2016.  If you do not wish to participate in the Settlement, you
may exclude yourself from the Class by October 21, 2016, or you
may remain in the Class and object to any aspect of the Settlement
by October 27, 2016.  Visit www.authentecshareholderlitigation.com
for important information about your options in the Settlement.

Hearing on the Proposed Settlement

The Court will hold a Final Settlement Hearing on November 17,
2016 at 11:15 A.M. to determine whether the proposed Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, to approve any attorneys' fees and
expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs.  The hearing date
may be changed by the Court, and you should check
www.authentecshareholderlitigation.com for updates.  The Final
Settlement Hearing will take place at Moore Justice Center, 2825
Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida 32940.  You do not have to
attend the hearing.

To get additional information, including a copy of the detailed
Notice and Proof of Claim form for the Common Fund cash payment,
visit www.authentecshareholderlitigation.com or call 1-888-264-
2889.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Willard" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno dismissed with prejudice the amended
complaint in the case captioned G. VERONICA WILLARD, Plaintiff, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-01199
(E.D. Pa.).

On March 15, 2016, G. Veronica Willard filed a class action
complaint pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, the Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  She also raised state
law claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation.


Willard sued Bank of America ("BOA"), Banc of America Consumer
Card Services ("BACCS"), BA Credit Card Funding ("Funding")
(collectively the "Bank Defendants"), Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker
& Moore, LLC ("BHLM")1, and 100 John Does.

Willard alleged that she opened a credit card account with Bank of
America (BOA) on August 24, 2004.  She asserted that at some point
thereafter, BOA sold the receivables for the credit card account
to Banc of America Consumer Card Services (BACCS), which in turn
sold them to BA Credit Card Funding (Funding), which ultimately
sold them to Wilmington Trust Company.

Willard claimed that by securitizing the credit card receivables
and selling them to Wilmington Trust, BOA relinquished its
beneficial interest in the entire credit card account and she no
longer owed a debt to BOA.  Thus, she contended that BOA had no
right to collect the credit card payments or attempt to collect
from her when she defaulted.

Willard also asserted that, even if the sale of the receivables
was possible, the bank defendants failed to follow the proper
procedures after she defaulted on her debt.  Specifically, she
contended that the receivables could not be returned to BOA so
that it could start a collection action until Wilmington Trust
filed a UCC termination statement.

Judge Robreno held that the bedrock of Willard's Amended Complaint
is unsound, considering that many courts across the country have
concluded that a bank does not lose its interest in a credit card
account when it securitizes the receivables associated with the
account.

Moreover, Judge Robreno also held that Willard has failed to
establish that before receivables associated with a defaulted
credit card account may be transferred from a trust back to the
bank that issued the card, the bank must request that the trust
issue a termination statement.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's September 6, 2016 memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/md30r9 from Leagle.com.

G. Veronica Willard, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Evarts.

Bank of America, Bank of America Consumer Credit, Bank of America
Funding LLC, Defendants, represented by Kristopher Issac Devyver -
- kdevyer@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP.

Blatt Hasenmiller, Defendant, represented by Kami S. Miller, Blatt
Hasenmiller Liebsker & Moore.


BANKSIA: Supreme Court Approves $13.25MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everard Himmelreich, writing for The Standard, reports that south-
west investors in the failed Banksia finance company are likely to
get another two cents in the dollar return on their investment
following the Supreme Court's approval of a settlement offer.

Supreme Court Justice Ross Robson in August approved a settlement
of $13.25 million to be paid by Banksia's directors, solicitors
and auditors RSD chartered accountants and other professional
firms.

The settlement follows court action by the Banksia investors class
action, fronted by Laurence Bolitho of Kyabram, and Banksia'a
receivers/liquidators.

Those who made the settlement offer include Banksia directors
Grenville Skewes of Warrnambool, Peter Keating, Patrick Godfrey,
Nicholas Carr and Neil Mathison.  The offer follows negotiations
between the parties.

Two of the co-founders of the Kyabram Banksia Debenture Holders
Action Group, Don McKenzie and Doug Crow, said the expected return
to investors from the settlement of about two cents in the dollar
should flow through in the next few months.  The settlement should
lift the return so far to Banksia investors to 82 cents in the
dollar of their investment.

However the two said they were "extremely disappointed" with the
amount of money awarded and said the Banksia directors and other
officers had "inadequate" professional indemnity insurance cover.

"The Banksia Directors and Officers insurance cover was only $10
million which was also to cover any defence costs they incurred.
The auditors also held a cover of just $10 million.

"Given that the trustee (Banksia's trustee, The Trust Company)
will also be taking action against these parties, it is felt that
the settlement is probably as good a result as could be expected,"
the two said.

Messrs. Crow and McKenzie said they believed The Trust Company was
the most culpable party in the collapse of Banksia in 2012. The
collapse left 16,000 investors, including more than 1000 debenture
holders in the south-west, owed hundreds of millions.

The two were hopeful separate court action being taken against The
Trust Company, now owned by Perpetual, for $133 million plus
interest will produce a higher settlement than that obtained from
the Banksia directors and other officers.  That case is due to be
heard by the Supreme Court in March, next year.

The two said The Trust Company had also been the trustee for
Statewide Secured Investments when Banksia took over Statewide in
2008 and as such had a conflict of interest that should have
stopped it agreeing to the merger.

"This situation becomes even worse in regard their culpability
where a forensics audit shows the expense, loss and damage Banksia
incurred by agreeing to enter into and implement the amalgamation
(with Statewide).

"The forensic audit shows that Statewide had negative assets at
the amalgamation date which included 26 loans that had a total
loss of over $54 million with some $40 million of not permitted
loans under the Trust Deed and that the Statewide merger virtually
brought about the Banksia failure," the two said.

They said Banksia investors were entitled to be "disgusted" at the
incompetence of Banksia's and Statewide's management that was
revealed in the court hearings and related investigations.

"These matters should have been discovered by the trustee (The
Trust Company) long before the appointment of receivers," they
said.

"After all it is duty of the trustee to oversee and protect the
interest of investors.

"Banksia could possibly have survived without the Statewide merger
and with appropriate management decisions," Mr McKenzie and Mr.
Crow said.


BAPTIST HEALTH: "Whitley" Suit Removed to Arkansas Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Whitley, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals,
Diamond Risk Insurance, LLC, Continental Casualty Company, Admiral
Insurance Company, Admiral Indemnity Company, Ironshore Indemnity
Inc., Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No.
60CV-16-4187 (Ark. Cir., August 30, 2016), has bee removed to the
United States District Court of the Eastern District Of Arkansas
on August 30, 2016 under case No. 4:16-cv-00624.

Brian Whitley had health coverage under an employer health
insurance plan.  He sustained injuries from an automobile
collision and his treatment exceeded the liability coverage of
liability insurer for the driver that caused his injuries.

Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff that because he had been
injured by the third party driver, they would not submit the
medical bills to Plaintiff's health insurer, would not accept
Plaintiff's health insurance for payment and would not provide him
with sufficient billing and treatment codes which would have
allowed the Plaintiff to submit the bills for payment by his
health insurance.

Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendant is represented by:

      Dirk K. Campbell, Esq.
      Kendell W. Grooms, Esq.
      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      CAMPBELL & GROOMS, PLLC
      8500 West Markham, Suite 105
      Little Rock, AR 72205
      Tel: (501) 313-4967
      Email: don@campbellgrooms.com

             - and -

      Sach D. Oliver, Esq.
      Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
      T. Ryan Scott, Esq.
      Geoff D. Hamby, Esq.
      BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM
      3606 W. Southern Hills Blvd.
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Email: soliver@baileyoliverlawfinn.com
             fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
             rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
             ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com


BARRETT BUSINESS: Defends Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services, 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 BBSI has filed its
reply brief to plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss a
class action complaint.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI's Chief Executive
Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI's then Chief Financial Officer.
The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all
Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities
laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for
BBSI Common Stock following announcement of a charge for increased
workers' compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought
compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial),
plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and
expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar
claims for relief. Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third
purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled
Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The
Stein complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga and
Carnes cases and asserted similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The
consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business
Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and
Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not been
undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint, naming BBSI, Elich and Miller as
defendants. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

On November 23, 2015, before the court had ruled on the motion to
dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint,
naming the same defendants. The first amended consolidated
complaint included new allegations relating to disclosures in
BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 9, 2015.

On February 16, 2016, BBSI filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended consolidated complaint. That same day, Messrs. Elich and
Miller, through separate counsel, also filed motions to dismiss
the first amended consolidated complaint, adopting BBSI's motion
in its entirety.

On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the motion to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs filed
a second amended consolidated complaint, naming the same
defendants. The second amended consolidated complaint dropped
certain allegations from the first amended complaint and added new
allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2016. Among other disclosures, BBSI
reported that (1) previously issued financial statements could not
be relied on, (2) Mr. Miller had reported making unsupported
journal entries, (3) Mr. Miller's employment had been terminated,
and (4) BBSI was in the process of engaging a Big Four accounting
firm to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation.
In a Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 19, 2016, BBSI
reported the results of the investigation, as well as the
discovery of certain errors in BBSI's previously filed financial
statements.

BBSI responded to the second amended consolidated complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2016. Messrs. Elich and
Miller joined in that motion. BBSI filed its reply brief to
plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 25, 2016.


BBX CAPITAL: Accord in NJ Tax Sales Case Awaits Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 reserved
decision on final approval of the settlement in the New Jersey Tax
Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."

Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 6, 2014.

While BBX Capital believed the claims to be without merit, BBX
Capital reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to
court approval. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by
the court and the fairness hearing was held on April 25, 2016,
during which the Court reserved decision on final approval.


BRENT COON: Humana et al. Sue Asbestos Lawyers
----------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Humana, Aetna and United Healthcare sued five Texas law firms
on September 6, demanding $19.5 million in medical benefits they
paid the firms' asbestos clients.

Asbestos became prized building material in the late 1800s for its
fire-resistant and sound-absorption qualities. By the 1950s, the
friable mineral had been incorporated into nearly every aspect of
commercial and home buildings: flooring, roofing, concrete,
insulation and bricks.  But inhaling asbestos can cause lung
diseases, including cancer. Class action lawsuits and government
regulations have resulted in tens of billions of dollars in
judgments and other costs, including remediation of buildings and
asbestos mines.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 banned materials
containing more than 1 percent asbestos from being sprayed on
buildings, pipes and electrical lines.

Most asbestos personal injury claims are settled through asbestos
bankruptcy trusts, set up in the reorganization plans of bankrupt
companies that manufactured asbestos, according to the insurers'
Sept. 6 lawsuit in Galveston Federal Court.

Once an asbestos trust is established, an asbestos claimant must
seek a settlement from the trust rather than through a lawsuit
against the debtor, the insurers say in the complaint.

"There are presently more than 50 asbestos trusts in operation.
Additional asbestos trusts are scheduled to be established
or begin accepting claims within the next 12-18 months.
Collectively, these trusts will hold more than $40 billion in
assets," the lawsuit states.

The three major insurance companies say the five defendant law
firms have pocketed more than $19.5 million in bankruptcy trust
settlements that belong to them, as reimbursement for medical
benefits they provided for 297 of the firms' clients.

The insurers say they had to review dozens of bankruptcy documents
and file motions in bankruptcy courts to identify those 297
people, because asbestos bankruptcy trust claims operate "under a
cloak of secrecy" with no public disclosure of who gets paid, how
much they are paid, nor from which trust.

The insurers say that as Medicare Part C providers, federal law
requires the law firms to reimburse their medical benefit payments
to the firms' clients.  They say the law firms repay benefits to
the federal government when their asbestos clients are covered by
Medicare Parts A and B, which are administered directly by the
feds, but ignore those bills when the clients are covered by
private insurers under Medicare Part C.  They allege ERISA and
Medicare Act violations and unjust enrichment.  They want the law
firms ordered to hold asbestos settlements in a trust account.

They also seek a declaration they are entitled to a list of the
names of all asbestos claimants represented by the law firms, and
reimbursement of medical benefits paid to the 297 claimants before
the firms pay out any more asbestos settlements.

The insurers are represented by John Thomas --
jthomas@hicks-thomas.com -- with Hicks Thomas in Houston.

The defendants are Brent Coon & Associates, and Reuad Morgan &
Quinn LLP, both based in Beaumont; The Bogdan Law Firm, and
Shrader & Associates LLP, both of Houston; Arlington-based Foster
& Sear LLP; and Austin-based Hissey Kientz LLP.

None of the firms responded to requests for comment.

Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare are three of the six largest
health insurers in the United States. Together, they insure more
than 100 million U.S. residents.


BRUCE SHEAR: Court Narrows Claims in "MAZ Partners" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MAZ PARTNERS LP, Individually and on Behalf
of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE SHEAR, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-11049-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti
B. Saris allowed, in part, and denied, in part, the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

In the class action, the plaintiff, MAZ Partners LP, alleged in
Count I of its second amended complaint that the directors of PHC,
Inc., breached their fiduciary duty by approving inadequate
compensation for Class A shareholders in connection with PHC's
merger with Acadia Healthcare, Inc.  In Count II, MAZ contended
that one director, Bruce Shear, then CEO of PHC, breached his
fiduciary duty as PHC's controlling shareholder by negotiating a
$5 million sweetener for his Class B shares at the expense of the
Class A shareholders.  Finally, in Count III, MAZ alleged that
Acadia aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.

The defendants responded that the directors were independent and
protected by the deferential business judgment rule, that Shear
was not PHC's controlling shareholder, and that MAZ has provided
no evidence that Acadia knowingly aided and abetted any alleged
breach of the directors' fiduciary duty.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

Judge Saris allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment
with respect to the directors' liability for any disclosure
violations.  The judge found that the plaintiff's disclosure
allegations constituted violations of the duty of care, not the
duty of loyalty, and the directors are protected by the
exculpation clause for such violations.

Judge Saris, however, denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment on Count I.  MAZ argued that the directors received
improper personal financial benefits as part of the merger at the
expense of the PHC shareholders.  MAZ also contended that Shear,
although he abstained from the merger vote, improperly controlled
the other directors' merger votes.  Although in their affidavits
the directors flatly denied any coercion or intimidation by Shear,
Judge Saris found that MAZ has provided sufficient evidence to
create a genuine dispute about whether Shear controlled the
directors' merger votes.

MAZ also argued that Shear, as PHC's controlling shareholder,
violated his fiduciary duty by competing with the public
shareholders for merger consideration.  The defendants responded
that Shear was not the controlling shareholder and did not owe any
independent fiduciary duty to shareholders outside of his duty as
director.  Judge Saris, however, found that MAZ has provided
sufficient evidence to show a genuine dispute of material fact
regarding Shear's status as the controlling shareholder of PHC,
and thus denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment with
respect to Count II of the plaintiff's second amended complaint.

Judge Saris also denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment on Count III of the plaintiff's second amended complaint.
The defendants argued that MAZ has produced no evidence to support
its claim that Acadia knowingly aided and abetted the defendants'
breach of fiduciary duty, but MAZ responded that Acadia's CEO
negotiated almost exclusively with Shear and agreed to additional
merger compensation for Shear, not shared by the majority of PHC's
Class A shareholders.  The judge thus found that MAZ has provided
sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute about whether
Acadia knowingly aided and abetted Shear's alleged breach of his
fiduciary duty.

Judge Saris denied the MAZ's motion for summary judgment to
establish the standard of review for the merger transaction
because the judge has already found that the defendants are not
entitled to summary judgment on the questions of whether Shear was
PHC's controlling shareholder and whether he dominated the other
directors in their merger votes.

Judge Saris, however, allowed summary judgment for MAZ on the
defendants' on the equitable defense of unclean hands, and on
defendants' affirmative defenses of mitigation, laches and
estoppel.

A full-text copy of Judge Saris' September 1, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/HXuyxR from Leagle.com.

MAZ Partners LP, represented by Brian C. Kerr --
kerr@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, P.C., Chet B. Waldman --
cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper Wolf Ross & Jones,
Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo & Norman Berman --
nberman@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo.

Bruce A. Shear, Donald E. Robar, Douglas J. Smith, Howard W.
Phillips, William F. Grieco, David E. Dangerfield, Defendants,
represented by James H. Hulme -- james.hulme@arentfox.com -- Arent
Fox, LLP, pro hac vice, Leonard H. Freiman --
lfreiman@goulstonstorrs.com -- Goulston & Storrs, PC, Matthew M.
Wright -- matthew.wright@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP, pro hac
vice & Richard M. Zielinski -- rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com --
Goulston & Storrs.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., Acadia Merger Sub, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Douglas S. Curran -- dcurran@cov.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James H. Hulme, Arent Fox, LLP, pro hac
vice, Leonard H. Freiman, Goulston & Storrs, PC, Matthew M.
Wright, Arent Fox LLP, pro hac vice, Richard M. Zielinski,
Goulston & Storrs & Whitney L. Becker --
whitney.becker@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.


CANADA: Ontario Solicits Public Input on Future of Huronia
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Hashizume, writing for Bayshore Broadcasting, reports that the
Ontario government is soliciting public input on the future of the
Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia.

The province is holding public consultations on what to the do
with the 175-acre property located near the shores of Lake Simcoe
at the south end of the city.

One of the groups that are interested in the property is the
Huronia Cultural Campus Foundation.

They are hoping to turn the place into a cultural and arts
destination.

Foundation Chair Fred Larsen says this would be a really good
change that would enhance the property.

He says it could enhance the areas of artistic, educational, and
cultural opportunities.

Ms. Larsen says they had a survey out at the Huronia Arts Festival
on August 13th asking people what the Province should do with the
property.

He says they had an idea that the Province was going to hold
public consultations and thinks that is a good thing.

Ms. Larsen says there have been a lot of different ideas as to
what to do with the property.

He says the consultation is a good way to see where the public
want this to go.

The Province closed the Huronia Regional Centre in 2009 and
declared it surplus.

A class-action lawsuit was launched by former patients of the
centre alleging abuse while they were housed there.

In 2013, there was a $35 Million out-of-court settlement between
the Province and the former patients of the centre and their
relatives.


CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Legal Newsline's Andrew Burger, reports of data
breaches have become commonplace, prompting U.S. courts to raise
the bar on associated class action lawsuits.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in early
August declined to grant standing to a class action filed in the
wake of a data breach at CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield.  Hackers
compromised health insurer CareFirst's IT systems in June 2014 and
obtained personal data for more than a million BlueCross
BlueShield policyholders.

In dismissing the class action, Judge Christopher Cooper concluded
that the plaintiffs failed to show that the private personal data
allegedly obtained by hackers had caused any injury to plaintiffs
or was sufficient in and of itself to do so. Significantly for the
court, plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the perpetrators
of the data breach had obtained Social Security or credit card
numbers.

Merely establishing that private personal information had been
illegally acquired via a data breach is no longer sufficient to
warrant standing in a class action, Ballard Spahr attorney Edward
McAndrew said.

"In and of itself the CareFirst data breach is just another
development in the establishment of precedent regarding standing
in data breach cases," he told Legal Newsline.

"What's new here is that courts are saying they're going to look
at the particular types of data allegedly acquired in security
breaches and determine if there's a high risk of stolen data to be
used for criminal purposes.  In CareFirst the court concluded that
factual allegations regarding the data stolen provided by
plaintiffs did not reveal any actual or impending injury, or
demonstrate a substantial likelihood that personal injury could
occur."

The CareFirst decision reinforces and adds to a May U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on a technical legal issue raised in Robins v.
Spokeo, a class action in which a plaintiff asserted he had been
harmed by false personal information sold by data broker Spokeo
that had been published on the Internet.  Reversing an appellate
court ruling, the high court justices voted 6-2 in concluding that
plaintiff failed to show he had suffered concrete harm.

In that case, the court disagreed with plaintiffs attorneys'
argument that even without demonstrating personal injury,
violation of a statute -- in this case the D.C. Consumer
Protection Procedures Act (DCPPA) -- was sufficient grounds for
granting class action status.

"We have made it clear time and time again that an injury, in
fact, must be both concrete and particularized," Justice Samuel
Alito wrote in the majority opinion.  He added that certain types
of mistakes wouldn't qualify as evidence of injury.

"An example that comes readily to mind is an incorrect ZIP code.
It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect
ZIP code, without more, could work any concrete harm."

More broadly in CareFirst, the court's conclusion that private
personal data allegedly acquired in a data breach is not likely to
result in the misuse of that information is highly debatable, Mr.
McAndrew said.

"Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion," he said.  "In
Remigas class action, the Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals decided
that class action plaintiffs had sufficient standing based solely
on the alleged theft of personal data from the P.F. Chang
restaurant chain."

In that 2014 civil lawsuit, two Illinois men did show that the
personal debit card data obtained in the breach was subsequently
used to make fraudulent charges, he pointed out.

"Some 350,000 credit card numbers allegedly were stolen, and
plaintiff attorneys showed that over 9,000 of those actually had
been used to commit credit card fraud, or ID theft," Mr. McAndrew
said.

In addition, in CareFirst, the court did not address the potential
for hackers to obtain sufficient personal data to perpetrate
fraud/ID theft or other criminal acts by assembling digital
dossiers on consumers from multiple sources, Mr. McAndrew
continued.

"They wind up combining all the data they can acquire to create a
much more comprehensive dossier that could be sold on the 'dark
web.'"

Email addresses were stolen in the CareFirst case, and plaintiffs
did submit evidence that SSNs had been acquired subsequent to a
court briefing on the issue.  The court ruled that such evidence
would not be considered as plaintiffs did not mention that in
their complaint, however.


CATAMARAN HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------
Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned SHAREN SMITH, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CATAMARAN HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, LLC, f/k/a CATALYST HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a
HEALTHEXTRAS, INC., and STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-2846-BHH (D.S.C.).

On July 20, 2015, Sharen Smith, a resident of South Carolina,
filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
South Carolina residents concerning allegedly fraudulent insurance
practices.  Smith asserted claims against the architect of the
alleged fraudulent insurance scheme, Catamaran Health Solutions,
LLC, f/k/a Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., f/k/a HealthExtras,
Inc., and an underwriter, Stonebridge Life Insurance Company,
which lent its name to the architect in order to facilitate
solicitation of customers in South Carolina.  Smith alleged that
the defendants engaged in the fraudulent advertising, marketing,
and sale of "group" disability insurance ("the Policy") to South
Carolina residents who were not members of any group for which
such an insurance product was authorized, and thus the policies
were illegal.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing
that Smith lacks standing to sue because she has not suffered an
injury in fact and the case should therefore be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).  The defendants further argued that even if
Smith has standing, she has not set forth factual allegations
that, accepted as true, are sufficient to show she is entitled to
relief and her claims should be dismissed under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Hendricks found that all of Smith's causes of action are
contingent on three alleged sources of injury: (1) that the Policy
was "illegal" and void under South Carolina law, (2) that the
Policy was "virtually worthless" because of "harsh and confusing
exclusions" and because the defendants had no intent to pay
claims, and (3) that the Policy was sold through an illegal
scheme, where most of the premiums collected enriched HealthExtras
and represented no benefit to the policy members at all.

The judge, however, held that these allegations are either wrong
as a matter of law or entirely speculative, and the face of
Smith's complaint reveals no concrete, actual or imminent harm.
Further, because Smith's lack of standing applies to all of her
theories of liability, Judge Hendricks saw no need to conduct an
independent analysis of each cause of action for failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), as to do so would be extraneous
effort.  Accordingly, the judge granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Hendricks' September 1, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/suZB1i from Leagle.com.

Sharen Smith, Plaintiff, represented by William E. Hopkins, Jr.,
Hopkins Law Firm.

Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kevin Kendrick Bell -- kbell@robinsonlaw.com -- Robinson McFadden
and Moore, James David Brown -- dbrown@winstead.com -- Winstead
PC, pro hac vice, Stephen Roy Clarke -- sclarke@winstead.com --
Winstead PC, pro hac vice & Thomas C. Van Arsdel --
tvanarsdel@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Has Until Sept. 29 to Answer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, The Allen J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust v. CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc. et al., 1:16-cv-00195 (E.D. Tenn.),
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., Stephen D Lebovitz, Farzana K
Mitchell on Sept. 9 filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of
Time to File Answer to the Complaint.  On Sept. 12, Magistrate
Judge Christopher H Steger granted the Motion, and gave Defendants
up to and including Sept. 29 to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. and CBL & Associates Limited
Partnership said in their 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 May 27, 2016,
Tommy French filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of
himself and all persons who purchased our common stock between
August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016. Two additional suits were filed
shortly thereafter with similar allegations. On June 9, 2016, The
Allan J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust filed a putative class
action in the same Court on behalf of the trust and all persons
who purchased our common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24,
2016, and on June 24, 2016, International Union of Painters &
Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension Plan filed another
putative class action in the same Court on behalf of itself and
all persons who purchased our common stock between August 9, 2011
and May 24, 2016, containing similar allegations."

On July 26, 2016, motions were submitted to the Court for the
consolidation of these three cases, as well as for the appointment
of a lead plaintiff. The deadline for the Court to act to appoint
a lead plaintiff was September 1, 2016.

"All three of these complaints are based on substantially similar
allegations that certain of the Company's financing arrangements
were obtained through fraud and/or misrepresentation, and that we
and certain of our officers and directors made materially
misleading statements to the market by failing to disclose
material information concerning these alleged misrepresentations,
and concerning the supposed involvement by insiders of the Company
in alleged trading in the Company's stock by a United States
senator on the basis of material nonpublic information. Based on
these allegations, these complaints assert claims for violation of
the securities laws and seek a variety of relief, including
unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees.
We believe these complaints are without merit and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously," the Company said.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Set-Top Box Class Action Faces Roadblock
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Zuckerman, writing for Talk Media News, reports that
consumers who say they are being ripped off by cable tv providers
that collect a monthly rental fee for use of a set-top box that
can be purchased for a fraction of the rental cost will have to
wait for a rulemaking that is crawling through the Federal
Communications Commission.  A shortcut in the form of a class
action antitrust lawsuit against Cox Communications ran into a
roadblock at the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The court
ruled that the dispute should be resolved through an arbitration
clause that Cox added to its subscriber agreements by relying on a
"modification clause" authorized revisions without customers'
approval.


CR BARD: More Than 600 IV Filter Lawsuits Pending in Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Roopal Luhana, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that more
than 600 Bard IVC filter lawsuits are pending in court, with all
federally filed cases consolidated in the District of Arizona in
August 2015.

A new case, filed on May 5, 2016, has now joined the MDL in
Arizona.  The plaintiff in this case name as defendants C.R. Bard
and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., and seek class action status
for their case, hoping to represent thousands of individuals who
received a Bard IVC filter and then suffered serious injuries as a
result.

The case was consolidated with the MDL on June 21, 2016.  The
plaintiffs seek in excess of $5 million in damages.

Plaintiffs Accuse Bard of Aggressive Marketing Despite Negative
Clinical Data

The plaintiffs in the case are from a number of different states,
including Florida, Colorado, Arizona, West Virginia, California,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Maryland, and
Illinois.  All were implanted with a Bard IVC filter -- a medical
device that is implanted in the inferior vena cava, the main vein
that goes from the legs back to the heart and lungs.  The IVC
filter is a small, cage-like device designed to trap blood clots
before they can travel to the lungs and cause pulmonary embolism
(PE, or blood clot in the lung).

The plaintiffs received a variety of filters, including the Bard
G2, the Bard G2 Express, the Bard Recovery, the Bard Eclipse, the
Bard Denali, and the Bard Meridian.  All plaintiffs in this case
still have the filters inside of them--none have been removed.

The plaintiffs alleged Bard of aggressively marketing their
filters, "despite negative clinical data."  According to their
complaint, Bard became aware of numerous events in which the
Recovery filter fractured, migrated, or perforated the inferior
vena cava, causing blood clots, serious injuries, and even death,
yet failed to respond with appropriate actions or warnings.  In
July 2004, Bard knew there were at least 12 filter migrations
resulting in four deaths and at least 17 reports of filter
fracture, six cases of which involved one of the "legs" of the
filter penetrating the heart.

Bard continued to market the Recovery until 2005, when the G2
filter, an updated design, was approved by the FDA.

Bard Updated Designs Still Plagued with Problems

The Bard G2, however, didn't seem to perform much better than the
Recovery.  It was also linked to a high incidence of fracture, and
in a review of the FDA database for the years 2004 through 2008,
Bard IVC filters were found to be responsible for 50 percent of
all adverse events, 64 percent of all occurrences of IVC filter
migrations, 69 percent of all vena cava wall perforations, and 70
percent of all filter fractures.

These problems were associated with injuries like cardiac
arrhythmia, fluid around the heart, hemorrhage, and death.  Bard
produced the Eclipse, which was FDA-approved in January 2010.  The
only difference between it and the G2 was that it was
electropolished, which was supposed to increase fracture
resistance.  The new design continued to suffer from similar
problems, and Bard released the Meridian in August 2011. The only
difference between it and the Eclipse was a caudal anchoring
system, which was supposed to reduce the risk of the filter
migrating toward the groin.  Bard received FDA approval for the
Denali in May 2013, which included a caudal and cranial anchoring
system to reduce filter migration.  The plaintiffs claim that the
Denali was still vulnerable to the same defects.

Plaintiffs Seek Medical Monitoring

In May 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication concerning IVC
filters, and recommended that doctors should remove them within 29
to 54 days after implantation, as long as the danger for pulmonary
embolism had passed.

The plaintiffs seek damages for medical monitoring, in addition to
seeking payment for damages, because they were exposed to a
significantly higher risk of injury and death from Bard's IVC
filters than they would have if the filters had been designed
without defects.


CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Sallustro" Underway
---------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the case by Tanya Sallustro remains pending.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.
The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a
motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.  On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling
appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff.  Counsel for Mr. Schuck
filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015.

On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  After requesting several
extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016.  The Company's reply brief
was filed on April 25, 2016.

No hearing date has been set by the Court at this time.
Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an
estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.


CVS CAREMARK: 1st Cir. Revives Suit Over Vit E Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RONDA KAUFMAN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CVS CAREMARK
CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendants, Appellees, No. 16-
1199 (1st Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
reversed the district court's order dismissing Ronda Kaufman's
complaint.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. sells a Vitamin E dietary supplement with a
label that touts the product as supporting "heart health."  Having
purchased CVS's Vitamin E product, Kaufman alleged that CVS's
label deceives consumers because no scientifically valid studies
show that the label's "heart health" statements are both truthful
and not misleading.  Kaufman marshalled her allegations in service
of a putative class action complaint that advances two counts at
issue on appeal: violation of the New York Consumer Protection
Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, which makes unlawful
"[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,
trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service" in New
York, and a piggy-back common law claim of unjust enrichment

The district court found that federal law preempts both of these
statements because CVS's label on its Vitamin E product complied
with labeling requirements for dietary supplements under the
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On appeal, however, the First Circuit found that Kaufman has
adequately pled that CVS's labeling of its Vitamin E supplement is
not in keeping with the requirements of FDCA section 343(r), and
that federal law does not, therefore, preempt application of New
York state law for the purpose of holding CVS accountable for
misleading consumers by failing to satisfy those requirements.

The First Circuit further held that the unjust enrichment count is
also not preempted to the extent that its reference to deceptive
conduct is solely to the conduct that would render the label
misleading under section 343(r).

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's September 6, 2016 decision
is available at https://is.gd/vMrvAZ from Leagle.com.

Brian D. Penny -- penny@lawgsp.com -- with whom Goldman Scarlato &
Penny, P.C., was on brief, for appellant.

Robert M. Andalman -- randalman@aandglaw.com -- with whom A&G Law
LLC was on brief, for appellees.


DALLAS CENTRAL: 326 Colonial Suit Alleges Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------
326 Colonial Apartment Complex, LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10787, (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 30, 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 real property and improvements located at 3500 E
Overton Rd., Village Oaks, Dallas County, Texas and alleges that
the value placed on the property by the District represents a
value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Boling, Esq.
      Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
      2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
      Plano, TX 75023
      Tel: (214) 378-8788
      Fax: (214) 378-8988
      Email: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: 2015 Market Center Suit Alleges Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Market Center LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10777 (Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, August 30, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised
value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other
and further relief in violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of a property located at 2015
Market Center Blvd. Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the
value placed on the property by the District represents a value in
excess of fair market value for tax year 2016.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Boling, Esq.
      Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
      2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
      Plano, TX 75023
      Tel: (214) 378-8788
      Fax: (214) 378-8988
      Email: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS APPRAISAL: 3010 State Street Suit Alleges Misappraisal
-------------------------------------------------------------
3010 State Street, L.P. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10759 (Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, August 30, 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 real properties located at 2101
and 2201 Clark Street, 3010 and 3204 Thomas Avenue and 3010, 3108
and 3101 State Streets, Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the
value placed on the property by the District represents a value in
excess of fair market value for tax year 2016.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             jtobin@gpd.com
             dsessions@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: 3146 Northgate Suit Alleges Misappraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
3146 Northgate LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10729 (Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, August 30, 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 a real property located at W.
Northgate Drive, Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value
placed on the property by the District represents a value in
excess of fair market value for tax year 2016.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Lang, Esq.
     Heather H. Long, Esq.
     LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     P.O. Box 261330
     Plano, TX 75026
     Telephone: (972) 731-6758
     Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
     E-Mail: mike@langlaw.com


DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: First Hearing in Fraud Class Action Held
----------------------------------------------------------
Pam Martens and Russ Martens, writing for Global Research, report
that Mavi Ramierez is a Mom, a social media entrepreneur and a
dedicated citizen journalist who took a day off from work to cover
the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has
been filed by Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters against the
Democratic National Committee and its former Chair, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz.  The lawsuit, which currently has more than 100
plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings with retainer
agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and negligence.

Leaked DNC documents and emails by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks show
Wasserman Schultz disparaging the Sanders' campaign while key DNC
officials actually plotted to sabotage the Sanders' campaign by
putting the word out that he is an atheist (which Sanders says he
is not) and characterizing his campaign as "a mess."  From a
virtual unknown on the national stage, Sanders' campaign won 23
states in the primaries, raised over $228 million, predominantly
from average Americans, and held rallies that ranged from 5,000 to
more than 20,000 supporters while Clinton attracted hundreds.
Sanders' supporters are demanding this court case to determine if
the intentional sabotage by the DNC cost Sanders' his primary
battle.

Since mainstream media has failed to report on this first court
hearing, the interviews conducted by Mavi Ramierez outside the
Federal courthouse take on added significance.  Ms. Ramierez
interviewed the Sanders' supporters and attorney for plaintiffs as
they emerged from the hearing.  But throughout these interviews,
there was a constant, annoying, and distracting honking coming
from an SUV parked on the sidewalk. One gutsy interviewee, who
goes by the Facebook name of Jessica Rose Grfl, strolled down to
the SUV, peered inside, and tells the videographer that this is an
unmanned vehicle.  The honking appears to be by remote control.
Ms. Ramierez and her videographer move closer to the SUV and show
viewers that it is from the Federal Protective Service of the
Department of Homeland Security.

The head of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, is an Obama nominee.
Johnson has spun four times through the revolving doors of the
corporate/Wall Street law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison to work in either the Bill Clinton or Obama
administration.   Johnson was a bundler for Obama in his 2008
campaign and personally donated $28,460 to the Obama Victory Fund
and another $28,460 to the DNC in 2008, according to Federal
Election Commission data.

Clearly, Johnson is a big Obama fan and Obama is a big Debbie
Wasserman Schultz fan.  In June, Politico's Hanna Trudo reported
that Obama appeared at a DNC fundraiser in Miami and told the
crowd the following about Wasserman Schultz: "She's had my back, I
want to make sure we have her back."

Just two days after Wikileaks released the devastating emails in
July, showing that key DNC officials had violated their own bylaws
in overtly attempting to sabotage the Sanders' campaign, creating
an instant scandal in the media and forcing Wasserman Schultz to
resign from the DNC, President Obama remained unconscionably
effusive in his praise for Wasserman Schultz. The White House
released this official statement from the President on July 24,
which stated in part:

"For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has
had my back.  This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I
am grateful.  Her leadership of the DNC has meant that we had
someone who brought Democrats together not just for my
re-election campaign, but for accomplishing the shared goals we
have had for our country . . . Michelle and I are grateful for her
efforts, we know she will continue to serve our country as a
member of Congress from Florida and she will always be our dear
friend."


DISNEY: Loses Bid to Delay "No Poaching" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
9th Circuit denies permission for a review, bringing the studio
closer to a trial scheduled for next year.

On Aug. 29, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an effort by
Disney and DreamWorks to delay a class action lawsuit that alleges
that animation studios colluded with each other to deny its
workers better job opportunities and keep wages low.

Robert Nitsch, a former visual effects worker who worked on Matrix
Revolutions and Kung Fu Panda, and others are moving forward after
striking a $13 million settlement with Sony Pictures and a $5.9
million deal with Fox's Blue Sky Studios.  A trial is currently
scheduled for June 2017 to hear evidence in an antitrust lawsuit
pertaining to the alleged way that these companies conspired about
a decade ago not to "cold call" one another's employees.

In May, U.S. District Court judge Lucy Koh partially certified the
class over Disney's objections that the issue of statute of
limitation precluded this outcome.  Specifically, the defendants
argued that plaintiffs must establish fraudulent concealment or
else their claims are time-barred.  They say that many class
members had actual knowledge of their potential claims through
meetings, blog posts and emails years before their action was
filed, and that accordingly, it would be inappropriate to address
claims on a class basis when knowledge from one class member to
the next could be varying.

After Judge Koh wouldn't let this argument stop certification,
Disney and DreamWorks hired one of the nation's top appellate
lawyers and told the 9th Circuit that the case raised "an
important question on a recurring issue impacting a wide range of
class actions."

Despite this, the 9th Circuit denies the petition for permission
to appeal.

Disney and DreamWorks may attempt to get the 9th Circuit
interested again on the same issue once the trial is complete and
a judgment has been entered, but they needed the green light for
an interlocutory appeal.  On Aug. 29, the bid was denied without
further comment by two of the 9th Circuit judges.


EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Court Allows Sodekson to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Lisa Sodekson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. East Coast Restaurant
& Nightclubs, LLC d/b/a The Gold Club of Bedford, PML Clubs, Inc.,
and Michael Rose, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-02711-RBH
(D.S.C.), Judge R. Bryan Harwell has issued an order:

     -- granting the plaintiff's motion to amend/correct
        complaint

     -- denying the plaintiff's motion for extension of time to
        complete discovery

     -- denying the plaintiff's motion for conditional
        certification of a collective action

     -- granting the plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the
        scheduling order to extend the mediation deadline for a
        period of 60 days from date of the order.

On or about July 8, 2015, Lisa Sodekson filed suit against the
defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), seeking relief on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated.  Sodekson, a resident of Massachusetts, worked as an
exotic dancer at The Gold Club in Bedford, New Hampshire for
approximately five months in 2012.

On December 24, 2015, Sodekson filed her motion to amend/correct
complaint, seeking to add another plaintiff, add two defendants,
and add additional South Carolina and New Hampshire state law
claims.  On June 9, 2016, the discovery deadline date, and nearly
a year after the lawsuit was initially filed, Sodekson filed a
motion to certify class and a motion for extension of time to
complete discovery.  Finally, Sodekson filed another motion to
amend the scheduling order to extend the mediation deadline on
August 5, 2016.

Sodekson requested leave of court to add Chantel Kaneshige, a
South Carolina resident who worked as an exotic dancer, as a named
plaintiff in the action.  While the defendants argued that
Kaneshige is subject to an arbitration agreement, Judge Harwell
found that the defendants have not filed a motion to compel
Kaneshige to arbitrate her claims when she filed her consent to
join the lawsuit.  Thus, the judge allowed Sodekson to amend her
complaint to add Kaneshige as a plaintiff to the case.

Judge Harwell also allowed Sodekson to amend her complaint to
include claims against the two corporate defendants, RT
Entertainment, LLC and Dunnigan's Restaurant, Inc., including the
alleged state law claims against the defendants.  The defendants
have not argued that they will be prejudiced by the inclusion of
these additional defendants or state law claims, or that the
Sodekson has acted in bad faith in filing her motion to
amend/correct the complaint.

Sodekson also sought to modify the Scheduling Order already in
place to permit discovery in the case.  However, because Sodekson
has not met the standard for extending the discovery deadline,
Judge Harwell denied Sodekson's motion.

Judge Harwell likewise denied Sodekson's motion for conditional
certification because Sodekson failed to provide sufficient
evidence to meet the standard for conditional certification.

Finally, Judge Harwell extended the deadline for mediation through
60 days, given that the parties have had several motions pending
that the court has ruled on.

A full-text copy of Judge Harwell's September 6, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/J9QY1f from Leagle.com.

Lisa Sodekson is represented by:

          David E. Rothstein, Esq.
          Michael G. Corley, Esq.
          ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
          1312 Augusta Street
          Greenville, SC 29605
          Tel: (864)438-0969
          Fax: (864)241-1386

PML Clubs Inc, Michael Rose, East Coast Restaurant & Nightclubs
LLC are represented by:

          Kenneth Ray Moss, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT WORLEY POPE EKSTER AND MOSS
          628 A Sea Mountain Hwy
          North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582-5802
          Tel: (843)281-9901

              - and -

          J. Michael Murray, Esq.
          Steven Daniel Shafron, Esq.
          BERKMAN GORDON MURRY AND DEVAN
          55 Public Square, Suite 2200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216)781-5245
          Fax: (216)781-8207


EAST COLUMBUS: Court Trims Claims in EOCC Sexual Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Graham granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the case
captioned Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v.
East Columbus Host, LLC (d/b/a Texas Roadhouse), and Ultra Steak,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-1696 (S.D. Ohio).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of 12
named complainants and a class of similarly situated women,
brought claims for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation
of Title VII against East Columbus Host, LLC (d/b/a Texas
Roadhouse) and Ultra Steak, Inc.  The EEOC presented evidence that
Brian Price, a restaurant manager in his late 30s, sexually
harassed young women and girls at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant for
three years before being fired.  The EEOC brought the case on
behalf of 12 women: Bonnie Rene Fagan, Brandy Jones, Fawn
Leathers, Courtney Faller, Lindsay Stover, Ashley Harry, Mirinda
Heightland, Cheyenne Johnson, Savannah McGrath, Michelle Hessler,
and Kathleen Brown.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the claims of
10 of the 12 women.

Judge Graham granted the motion only as to four retaliation claims
and three constructive-discharge claims, denying the balance.

The defendants' argued that the court should reject most of the
retaliation claims because the complainants failed to engage in
any protected activity.  Judge Graham found that the defendants
were right for only three of the complainants, namely: Stover,
Brown, and Fagan, who failed to present colorable evidence that
they engaged in even the most basic of protected activity -- they
did not resist or confront Price on his behavior.  For the other
complainants, the judge found that they either complained about
Price's behavior directly to Price or through other channels (for
example, to other local managers, corporate personnel, or HR hot-
lines), and their testimony presents a genuine issue of material
fact on whether they engaged in protected activity.  Judge Graham
also granted summary judgment on Hessler's retaliation claim for
being untimely.

Judge Graham also granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to the following complainants' constructive discharge
claims:

     -- Stover: Her own testimony provides overwhelming evidence
        for the reason for her resignation -- her other job and
        other commitments.

     -- Fagan: She did not quit, but she transferred to a
        different Texas Roadhouse restaurant, and the EEOC
        provided no evidence that this transfer was materially
        adverse to Fagan.

     -- Jones: she transferred to another Texas Roadhouse
        restaurant the same distance from her house. Jones
        presents no evidence of unusual circumstances, in fact,
        the transfer was her idea.

A full-text copy of Judge Graham's September 2, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/g5Tf0i from Leagle.com.

EEOC, Plaintiff, represented by Melanie M. Peterson, U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and Jessi Isenhart, U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

East Columbus Host, LLC, Ultra Steak, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Julie A. Crocker -- jcrocker@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, Blake J. Burgan -- bburgan@taftlaw.com --
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, pro hac vice & Carolyn A. Davis
-- cdavis@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Texas Roadhouse Inc., Movant, represented by Janay Marie Stevens
-- janay.stevens@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Robert C.
Rives, IV -- robert.rives@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
pro hac vice.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Schubert Probes Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder and consumer rights law firm Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP has launched an investigation into whether certain
officers and directors of Energy Recovery, Inc. breached their
fiduciary duties by making false and misleading statements to
shareholders and the market.  Energy Recovery provides energy
solutions to industrial fluid flow markets by converting wasted
pressure energy into reusable assets and preserving or eliminating
pumping technology in hostile processing environments.

On January 27, 2016 the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California upheld securities fraud class
action claims against Energy Recovery and certain of its officers
and directors regarding contractual negotiations with a
prospective client.  The Court found that former Chief Executive
Officer Thomas S. Rooney, Jr. acted with "deliberate or conscious
recklessness" in telling investors that Energy Recovery had
secured a verbal agreement with a prospective client . The amended
complaint filed in the class action on May 26, 2016 alleges
additional violations of the federal securities laws during the
period March 7, 2013 through March 5, 2015. Specifically,
defendants are alleged to have made false and misleading
statements regarding contractual negotiations with multiple
prospective clients, commercial interest in oil and gas products,
and the operability of core Energy Recovery products, causing the
stock price to be artificially inflated.

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe's investigation concerns when and how
much certain of Energy Recovery's officers and directors knew or
should have known of the false or misleading statements, and
whether any corporate insiders sold stock based on non-public
information.  Shareholders interested in seeking the recovery of
damages on behalf of the company and securing other remedial
measures should contact the firm.

If you are a long-term holder of Energy Recovery stock and wish to
obtain additional information about Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe's
investigation and your legal rights, please contact Dustin
Schubert either via email at dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com or by
telephone at (415) 788-4220, or fill out the form on our website
at http://classactionlawyers.com/energyrecovery

               About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe prosecutes securities claims,
representing investors throughout the nation in securities and
shareholder lawsuits.


EZCORP INC: Securities Litigation Moved Into Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Ezcorp, 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 case, In Re EZCORP,
Inc. Securities Litigation in New York has now moved into the
discovery stage.

On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A
Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). The complaint names as defendants
EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel (our former chief executive
officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer
and former chief operating officer) and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of
certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than
represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's
business units and investments were not performing as well as
represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the
defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's
business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also
purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and
acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC).

The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr. Rothamel and Mr.
Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn
Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally
that (1) EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr.
Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the business and prospects, and compliance history, of
the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. and the nature
of the Company's consulting relationship with entities owned by
Mr. Cohen and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing
to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as
controlling persons of EZCORP, participated in the preparation and
dissemination of the Company's disclosures and controlled the
Company's business strategy and activities.

On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists
Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action
and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint
the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff.

On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits
under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case
No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 26, 2015, appointed the
lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 12, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that:

* EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr.
Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K.
(Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history;

* EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's
consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by
Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing
to it;

* EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and
violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to
properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the
Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and

* Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling
persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions.

On April 27 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the
parties submitted their respective supporting and opposing briefs.

On March 31, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, it dismissed the
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims insofar as they were based on
(1) the alleged misstatements about the nature of and approval
process related to the Company's consulting relationship with
Madison Park, (2) the alleged misstatements regarding the
impairment of the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond, and
(3) some of the alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims survived the motions to
dismiss insofar as they were based on certain alleged
misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 20(a) claims also
survived the motions to dismiss. The case has now moved into the
discovery stage.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims,"
the Company said.


EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Securities Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ezcorp, 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
securities litigation in Texas remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported
holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on
behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting
Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The complaint names as defendants
EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and
Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on
July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for
fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged
generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the
financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

"On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these
2 lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated.

"On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective
counsel appointed as co-lead counsel.

"On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A
Common Stock between November 6, 2015 and October 20, 2015. The
Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of
Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither,
as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw.

"On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on
May 11, 2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on
June 22, 2016, and the parties are waiting on the Court's
decision.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company
said.


FOODSTATE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Holt" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned KATHLEEN HOLT, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. FOODSTATE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00078-L-JMA (S.D. Cal.).

Foodstate, Inc. is a producer of various health and dietary
supplements.  Plaintiffs Kathleen Holt and Jose Ruvalcaba
purchased and consumed two different vitamin products that
Foodstate produces: One Daily Multivitamin and Men's One Daily.
The plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, that Foodstate falsely represents that its
products are either entirely or largely from whole food sources
when in fact they are also derived from synthetic sources.  The
plaintiffs also alleged that Foodstate fails to disclose the
presence of magnesium stearate in its products.  Neither of the
plaintiffs in alleged that they actually purchased or consumed 107
of the 109 different products produced by Foodstate that form the
basis of the putative class action.

Foodstate moved to dismiss all claims to the extent they are based
on products the plaintiffs have not purchased or the omission of
the presence of magnesium stearate on the ingredient labels.

Given the diversity of functions between the products, and because
the plaintiffs have failed to articulate any meaningful
commonality as to ingredients or packaging, Judge Lorenz found
that the plaintiffs have failed to allege standing as to the 107
products they did not purchase.  Accordingly, the judge granted
Foodstate's motion to dismiss with respect to these products.

Foodstate also contended that the court should dismiss the fraud
based claims as to both the purchased and unpurchased products for
lack of adequate particularity, arguing that the plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint failed to cure this deficiency.  Judge
Lorenz, however, found that unlike the First Amended Complaint,
which was vague as to which specific additive was fraudulently
omitted from the label, the Second Amended Complaint specifically
identifies magnesium stearate as the stearic acid additive which,
though allegedly contained in the products, is omitted from the
product labels.  Accordingly, the judge denied Foodstate's motion
to the extent it sought dismissal of the magnesium stearate claims
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Foodstate further contended that the plaintiffs' claims under the
California Business and Professions Code are barred by the safe
harbor rule to the extent they are based on the omission of
magnesium stearate from the ingredient labels.  However, Judge
Lorenz found that Foodstate's motion failed to cite to any
California state law for the proposition that they need not
disclose the presence of magnesium stearate.  Accordingly, the
judge found Foodstate's safe harbor argument unpersuasive.

A full-text copy of Judge Lorenz's September 6, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/kQ1zSW from Leagle.com.

Kathleen Holt, Jose Ruvalcaba are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Tel: (949)612-9999
          Fax: 1-800-520-5523

Kathleen Holt is represented by:

          Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq.
          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino De Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619)233-7770
          Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

            -- and --

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          9171 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Tel: (216)220-6496
          Fax: (866)633-0228

Foodstate, Inc is represented by:

          Edward P. Swan, Jr., Esq.
          Truc T. Do, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          12265 El Camino Real, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130-4096
          Tel: (858)314-1200
          Fax: (858)314-1150
          Email: pswan@jonesday.com
                 trucdo@jonesday.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Throttle Bodies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that two California residents allege their Ford Edge vehicles
contain defective throttle bodies that cause the vehicle to drop
speed while in use.

Janis Benkle and John Kovak filed a complaint individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Aug. 24, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Southern
Division against Ford Motor Co. alleging violation of the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
purchased/leased defendant's vehicles containing a Delphi Gen 6
electronic throttle body, which caused their vehicles to
spontaneously stall or suddenly decelerate to a near idle speed
while in operation.

The plaintiffs hold Ford Motor Co. responsible because the
defendant allegedly concealed and failed to disclose its knowledge
of the throttle defect and failed to acknowledge or correct the
defect.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek for the case to be
maintained as a class action, damages, attorneys' fees, costs of
action and other relief as the court deems just.  They are
represented by Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and David Fernandes of
Baron & Budd PC in Encino, Blake P. Green of BG Law LLC in Kansas
City, Missouri and Eric D. Barton, Tyler W. Hudson and David P.
Barclay of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP in Kansas City, Missouri.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division Case number 16-cv-01569


FXCM: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Swiss Nat'l Bank Turmoil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Mizrahi, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that a
New York district court has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed
against FXCM over its performance in the aftermath of the Swiss
National Bank turmoil in 2015.

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that FXCM misled investors by
claiming that its agency business model is less risky than it
really was.  In addition the lawsuit was charging some other
executives in the company, including the broker's CEO Drew Niv,
with scienter.  The allegations went as far as to say that FXCM
had no risk management department nor any protocols that manage
risk.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Last Two Ignition Switch Bellwether Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that General Motors
Corp. has settled the last two bellwether cases scheduled for
later this year over alleged faulty ignition switches following a
number of successful outcomes before juries.

The settlements, which are confidential, resolve cases scheduled
for trials on Sept. 12 and Nov. 14 alleging that GM's ignition
switches slipped into the accessory position, disabling air bags
and electrical systems and injuring drivers in accidents.

GM has been largely successful so far at trial.  In the first
bellwether trial this year, plaintiffs lawyers withdrew the case
after their client lied.  The second ended with a jury finding
that the defect didn't cause the injuries.  A third settled, and a
fourth was voluntarily dismissed.

On Aug. 25, a Texas state court jury in Houston gave GM a defense
verdict.

Those trials "have been extremely helpful," wrote GM spokesman
James Cain wrote in an email on Sept. 5.  "We have learned that
juries care deeply about the cause and contributing factors of
each accident, and the merits of the claims.  Importantly, they
have carefully considered engineering and other evidence, not just
the mistakes GM has already admitted, and they're holding
plaintiffs to their burden of proof."

Robert Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, lead plaintiffs
attorney in the injury and death suits, said GM's decision to
settle the cases "creates momentum to continue the process of full
resolution of all MDL cases."

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who is overseeing most of the
injury and death cases in federal court in New York, is expected
to hear details of the settlements at a Sept. 7 status conference.

The next wave of bellwether trials in federal court are set to
start July 10.  Trials in state courts are scheduled for January
and February in California and March in Missouri.

Still in limbo are cases filed over accidents that predated GM's
2009 bankruptcy.  On July 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed a 2015 decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Robert Gerber that had barred those claims.

GM has filed a petition for an en banc rehearing.


HARVEST NATURAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action case, John
Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edminston
and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013), remains pending.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013);
Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston,
Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor Effimoff, H. H.
Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson
(April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013);
Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston
and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest
Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes
(April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W.
Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013).

The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into
the John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edminston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013).

The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits.

"We are currently unable to estimate the amount or range of any
possible loss," the Company said.


HARVEST NATURAL: Garland Sues Over Share Purchase Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Robert Garland,
a stockholder of the Company, filed on August 9, 2016, a lawsuit
in the 215th Civil District Court of Harris County, Texas against
the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board") and
CT Energy (and the Company, as a nominal defendant).

On June 29, 2016, Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company"),
and its wholly owned subsidiary, HNR Energia BV, ("HNR Energia"),
entered into a share purchase agreement (the "Share Purchase
Agreement") with CT Energy Holding SRL ("CT Energy"), pursuant to
which HNR Energia agreed to sell to CT Energy all of HNR Energia's
51% interest in Harvest-Vinccler Dutch Holding B.V. ("Harvest
Holding"). Harvest Holding owns, indirectly through wholly owned
subsidiaries, a 40% interest in Petrodelta, S.A., through which
all of the Company's Venezuelan interests are owned.

On August 2, 2016, the Company filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
(the "Proxy Statement") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission soliciting stockholder approval of the proposed sale of
the Company's Venezuelan interests, among other proposals.

The lawsuit asserts several class action and derivative claims,
including that (i) the Board members breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by negotiating and causing
the execution of the Share Purchase Agreement, (ii) CT Energy
aided and abetted the Board members in breaching their fiduciary
duties and (iii) the Proxy Statement contained inadequate
disclosures about the proposed transaction. Among other relief,
the lawsuit requests that the court grant an injunction to prevent
the completion of the proposed transaction, in addition to
unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and other costs.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "McCloskey" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, McCloskey et al v. Match Group Inc et al., 3:16-cv-
00549 (N.D. Tex.), Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint With Jury
Demand against Allen & Company LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp, BNP
Paribas Securities Corp, Barclays Capital Inc, Gregory R Blatt,
Cowen and Company LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Fifth Third
Securities Inc, JP Morgan Securities LLC, Joseph M Levin, Match
Group Inc, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer & Co Inc, PNC Capital
Markets LLC, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, SG Americas
Securities LLC, Michael H Schwerdtman, Gary Swidler, Gregg J
Winiarski.

On Aug. 17, 2016, a First Amended Scheduling Order was entered in
the case docket.  Pursuant to the Order, the court vacates the
Scheduling Order and Mediation Order issued July 20, 2016, and
issues the First Amended Scheduling Order. Lead Plaintiffs were
directed to file, or designate, an operative consolidated
complaint no later than Sept. 6, 2016. Defendants shall answer,
move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint no later than Nov. 5.
In the event that Defendants file a motion or motions to dismiss
the Complaint, response due by Dec. 23, and replies due by Feb. 6,
2017.

IAC/Interactivecorp 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 February 26, 2016, a
putative nationwide class action was filed in federal court in
Texas against Match Group, five of its officers and directors, and
twelve underwriters of Match Group's Company's initial public
offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v. Match Group,
Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Texas).  The complaint alleges that Match Group's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
its initial public offering were materially false and misleading
given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating
business would miss its revenue projection for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU (as defined in "Item 2-
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations-General-Key Terms") would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.

The complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleads claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint seeks class certification,
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholders in Match
Group and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel.  In
accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned
Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-
549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

"We and Match Group believe that the allegations in these lawsuits
are without merit and will defend vigorously against them," the
Company said.


ITT TECHNICAL: Employees File Class Action Over Shutdown
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the for-profit college chain ITT
Technical Institute is facing more lawsuits from employees
following its decision to shut down.

According to The Indianapolis Star, two new lawsuits say the
company violated federal law by not providing 60 days' notice.

Another lawsuit sought class-action status on behalf of the 8,000
employees who are losing their jobs as a result of ITT's decision
to shut down more than 130 ITT Technical Institute campuses in 38
states.

The three lawsuits were filed in Indiana and Delaware.

"There's no doubt in my mind here that there is a plant closing or
mass layoff and the employees did not get the 60 days' notice,"
said Ken Dau-Schmidt, the Willard and Margaret Carr professor of
labor and employment law in the Maurer School of Law at Indiana
University.  "The lawsuit seems fine on its surface."

But legal experts say ITT could counter by claiming it was the
victim of an "unforeseeable" regulatory assault and never had the
chance to defend itself.  An "unforeseeable event" would be an
exception to the 60-day notice rule.

ITT announced it's closing all 130 of its U.S. campuses, saying it
can't survive recent sanctions by the U.S. Department of Education
banning the school from enrolling new students paying tuition with
federal financial aid.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Strikes Two Upcoming Talc Trials
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a New Jersey
trial court judge has struck two upcoming trials over talcum
powder's link to ovarian cancer after concluding that two
plaintiffs' experts had "made-for-litigation" scientific methods.

In his Sept. 2 ruling, Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson
Johnson found that the experts, whose testimony was instrumental
at trials earlier this year in which plaintiffs attorneys obtained
verdicts of $72 million and $55 million, had gaps in their
scientific methodologies and failed to explain how talcum powder
specifically caused ovarian cancer.

"Throughout these proceedings the court was disappointed in the
scope of plaintiffs' presentation; it almost appeared as if
counsel wished the court to wear blinders," Judge Johnson wrote.
"No witness for plaintiffs ventured to articulate just how it is
that talc in the ovaries, or, what it is about talc in the
ovaries, that sets off a chain of events which purportedly causes
ovarian cancer."

Given that finding, Judge Johnson granted summary judgment to the
defendants in both cases.  The first trial, from among nearly 200
lawsuits in New Jersey state court, had been scheduled for
Oct. 11.

The ruling came as a big shock to plaintiffs attorneys, who say
they plan to appeal.

"This came out of the blue," said Ted Meadows --
ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com -- a principal at Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama.  He said
that Judge Johnson, in striking Drs. Graham Colditz and Daniel
Cramer, "went too far in his analysis and started weighing
evidence instead of determining whether or not their methodology
was sound."

The ruling bolstered previous attacks made by Johnson & Johnson
and its lawyers against the science behind plaintiffs' talc cases.

"The ruling goes right to the heart of the issues in this
litigation and affirms our position from the beginning that
science does not support the allegations plaintiff lawyers have
been making," wrote Gene Williams -- gmwilliams@shb.com -- a
Houston partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon who represents Johnson &
Johnson in the talc cases.

In August, Judge Johnson held a hearing that lasted seven days to
determine whether the scientific experts in the case met the
evidentiary standards set forth in the New Jersey Supreme Court's
2002 decision in Kemp ex rel. Wright v. State.  In determining
whether other experts would rely on their scientific research,
Judge Johnson found gaps in the methodologies of both Drs. Colditz
and Cramer, noting that neither could back up their explanation of
how talcum powder caused cancer in the ovaries.

Dr. Colditz has "all the earmarks of a made-for-litigation
presentation," Judge Johnson wrote.  And Dr. Cramer, he wrote,
uses a methodology based on numbers, rather than science. "Instead
of a plausible explanation of a hypothesis setting forth the
biological mechanism of the causal link between talc-based powder
and ovarian cancer, what the court received was a made-for-
litigation methodology," he wrote.

"Though both plaintiffs' experts are eminently qualified, their
areas of scientific inquiry, reasoning, and methodology are
slanted away from objective science and towards advocacy," he
concluded.

The testimony of one defense expert, by contrast, was like
"turning on the lights in a dark room," he wrote.

Mr. Meadows noted that a judge in Missouri, where this year's
verdicts took place in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St.
Louis, had allowed both experts into trial.

Both also are set to testify in a Sept. 26 trial, also in St.
Louis, he said.


KOCH FOODS: Fixed Chicken Prices for 8 Yrs, Chicago Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a food distributor claims in an antitrust class action in
Chicago, that Koch Foods, Tyson, Perdue and others have conspired
for eight years to reduce chicken production, pushing up the price
of broiler chickens by nearly 50 percent.

Maplevale Farms, a New York food distributor, also sued Pilgrim's
Pride, Sanderson Farms and others, on Sept. 2 in Chicago Federal
Court.

Maplevale claims that since 2008 the wholesale price of broiler
chickens has risen by nearly 50 percent while feed prices have
dropped more than 20 percent -- and not because of a free market.

"(B)eginning at least as early as January 2008 defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of Broilers," Maplevale says in the 113-page lawsuit. "The
principal (but not exclusive) method by which defendants
implemented and executed their conspiracy was by coordinating
their output and limiting production with the intent and expected
result of increasing prices of broilers in the United States."

Broilers account for 98 percent of all chicken meat sold in the
United States, and the defendant companies control 90 percent of
the market, Maplevale says.

"Historically, the broiler industry was marked by boom and bust
cycles where, in response to rising prices, producers increased
production, which caused an oversupply and resulting decrease in
pricing. However, that market pattern changed markedly in 2008,"
according to the complaint.

Unlike prior production cuts, Maplevale says, in 2008 "defendants
cut their ability to ramp up production for 18 months or more by
destroying broiler breeder hens in their broiler breeder flocks
responsible for supplying the eggs defendants raise into broilers.
This destruction of the broiler breeder flock was unparalleled and
the consequences continue to reverberate in the broiler industry
to present day."

Poultry breeders faced a similar antitrust complaint in the 1970s,
when major producers set production levels and prices for broilers
in a weekly conference call.

Modern technology makes price-fixing possible without phone calls.

"Producers now electronically transfer vast amounts of production
data to Agri Stats which, while supposedly anonymous, in fact
provide defendants with sufficient detail to determine with
reasonable accuracy producer-level data on production, cost, and
general efficiencies. This permits the defendants to share, on a
weekly and/or monthly basis, their confidential production and
pricing information, including forward-looking production
information, which is easily forecasted on broiler breeder flock
data that is reported and shared," the complaint states.

France fined 21 chicken companies a total of $17 million for price
fixing, showing that "a price-fixing conspiracy is plausible even
in the modern, industrialized reality of broiler production,"
Maplevale says.

It seeks class certification and treble damages for the inflated
prices class members have paid since 2008.

It is represented by Steven Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- with
Hart, McLaughlin & Eldridge in Chicago.

Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman and Perdue spokeswoman Andrea Staub
declined to comment. Koch Foods did not respond to a request for
comment.

The defendants are: Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC;
JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC; Koch Meats Co., Inc.; Tyson Foods,
Inc.; Tyson Chicken, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.; Tyson Poultry,
Inc.; Pilgrim's Pride Corporation; Perdue Farms, Inc.; Sanderson
Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division); Sanderson
Farms, Inc. (Production Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc.
(Processing Division); Wayne Farms, LLC; Mountaire Farms, Inc.;
Mountaire Farms, LLC; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.; Peco
Foods, Inc.; Foster Farms, LLC; House of Raeford Farms, Inc.;
Simmons Foods, Inc.; Fieldale Farms Corporation; George's, Inc.;
George's Farms, Inc.; O.K. Foods, Inc.; O.K. Farms, Inc.; and O.K.
Industries, Inc.


LIONS GATE: "Teamsters" Sues Against Shady Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lions Gate
Entertainment Corp., Orion Arm Acquisition, Inc., John C. Malone,
Chris Albrecht, Gregory Maffei, Irving Azoff, Andrew T. Heller,
Susan Lyne, Jeff Sagansky, Dan Sanchez, Charles Tanabe, Robert S.
Wiesenthal, Robert R. Bennett, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal
Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Hilltop Investments, Llc And
Deborah J. Bennett, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 12705 (Del. Ch.,
August 30, 2016), seeks consummation of a proposed merger of Starz
and Lions Gate, rescinding of merger if already in effect, costs
and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorney
and expert fees for breach of fiduciary duties.

Starz and Lions Gate had entered into a merger agreement with
Starz continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lions Gate.

Said agreement omitted the sales process, the conflicts of
interests in the process, data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness of the
deal which has resulted in an allegedly unfair price for Starz
stockholders. Plaintiff owns Starz shares.

Defendant is represented by:

      R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
      Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq.
      WILKS, LUKOFF & BRACEGIRDLE, LLC
      4250 Lancaster Pike, Suite 200
      Wilmington, DE 19805
      Telephone: (302) 255-0850

            - and -

      Randall J. Baron
      David T. Wissbroecker
      Edward M. Gergosian
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423


LOUISIANA CHILDREN'S: "Tillman" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Myreal Tillman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Louisiana Children's Medical Center,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14291 (E.D. La., August 30, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
damages for retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Louisiana Children's Medical Center is a Louisiana non-profit
corporation engaged in business in Orleans Parish, Louisiana
operating hospitals in the Greater New Orleans Area, including the
New Orleans East Hospital where Plaintiff working as a PBX
operator, transmitting pages, code blues over a hospital's
intercom system. Tillman claims to have worked through meal and
rest breaks and was allegedly terminated due to insubordination.

Defendant is represented by:

      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON AND JACKSON
      201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Tel: (504) 599-5953
      Fax: (888) 988-6499
      Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
             mjackson@jackson-law.net


MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Malvern Suit Moved to E.D. of Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
MALVERN INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHIATRIC AND ALCOHOLIC STUDIES, INC.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, INC., N/K/A MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS,
INC., MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
N/K/A MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., Case No. 160800738, was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04772-JCJ
to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. J. Curtis Joyner.

Magellan Health is an American for-profit managed health care
company, focused on behavioral healthcare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735 1130
          E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com

               - and -

          Gregory B. Heller, Esq.
          YOUNG RICCHIUTI CALDWELL & HELLER LLC
          1600 MARKET ST., SUITE 3800
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 546 1004
          Facsimile: (267) 546 1039
          E-mail: gheller@yrchlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          MICHAEL H. BERNSTEIN, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          225 Liberty St 28th Fl
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 422 0202
          E-mail: michael.bernstein@sdma.com


MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Suit in Tel Aviv
--------------------------------------------------------
MannKind 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 will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced in a class action in
Tel Aviv court.

The Company said, "Following the public announcement of Sanofi's
election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the
subsequent decline of the price of our common stock, several
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against us and certain of our officers and
directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock.
These complaints have now been consolidated into a single action.
The amended complaint includes claims asserted under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and has been pled as a
putative shareholder class action. In general, the complaint
alleges that we and certain of our officers and directors violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief. We will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced."

"Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to
terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline
of the price of our common stock, two motions were submitted to
the District Court at Tel Aviv (Economic Department) for the
certification of a class action against us and certain of our
officers and directors. In general, the complaints allege that we
and certain of our officers and directors violated Israeli and
U.S. securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. We will vigorously defend
against the claims advanced."


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Faces Criminal Prosecution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy B. Wang, writing for Washington Post, reports that a darling
of the far right and a longtime adversary of civil rights groups
and immigration activists, "America's toughest sheriff," will soon
face Justice Department lawyers in Washington in a years-long
legal saga over whether he intentionally defied federal orders to
stop racially profiling Latinos.

A special section of the Justice Department -- dedicated to
investigating corruption in publicly elected offices -- will
decide whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio should face
criminal contempt-of-court charges, according to a ruling filed on
Aug. 26 in U.S. District Court.

The decision followed several other blows for the Arizona sheriff
in the protracted case.  In May, U.S. District Judge G. Murray
Snow ruled that Arpaio and his aides -- Chief Deputy Jerry
Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey and his former attorney,
Michele Iafrate -- had intentionally ignored federal orders to
stop racially profiling Latinos at traffic stops and in
"saturation patrols" of predominantly Latino neighborhoods.

On Aug. 19, Judge Snow referred the sheriff and three of his
associates to be prosecuted for criminal contempt of court.

The decision was almost without precedent, so unusual that even
the Justice Department initially seemed unsure of what, exactly,
would happen next.

"It's atypical. It's not every day that we get referred to for a
referral order from a judge on a sheriff," Justice Departm ent
spokesman Cosme Lopez told The Washington Post. "Once the U.S.
attorney reviews everything with our team, the process will
commence.  What process is that and how long does it take? We
don't know."

Sheriff Arpaio vowed to challenge the referral and will refuse to
accept a plea agreement or resign as sheriff, his defense attorney
told The Post.  It is unclear what lasting consequences the threat
of criminal prosecution will have for the Republican sheriff, who
is unlikely to be jailed and is up for reelection in November.

Sheriff Arpaio's ongoing legal battles did not hurt him in the
primary election in Arizona, where he easily beat out his three
Republican challengers, according to early results.

Legal experts said Judge Snow's referral was a symbolic one: Even
if Sheriff Arpaio is prosecuted, contempt of court is a
misdemeanor that carries a maximum of six months in jail, and it
is not likely that Sheriff Arpaio would spend much time behind
(his own) bars.

"He's really taking a stance that 'Sheriff Joe' is not above the
law," Cara Rabe-Hemp, a criminal justice professor at Illinois
State University familiar with the case, told The Post.  "That
anyone can be held accountable for their behavior -- even if
you're a very popular sheriff."

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office declined to comment,
referring all inquiries about the case to Sheriff Arpaio's
criminal defense attorney, Mel McDonald.

"Very simply, he's not going to resign and he's not going to
accept a plea agreement to something he didn't do," Mr. McDonald
told The Post, referring to the charge that Arpaio willfully
ignored court orders to stop racially profiling Latinos.  "We
provided the court page after page after page of all the efforts
that had been made to carry out the judge's order."

Mr. McDonald said on Aug. 28 that the latest development in the
case was disappointing from a logistics standpoint.  Mr. McDonald
had looked forward to working with the U.S. attorney in Arizona
because he has had a long relationship with the office; he served
as U.S. attorney there from 1981 to 1985.

The filing cited unspecified conflicts of interest as the reason
for recusing prosecutors in Arizona and shifting the case to
Washington.

"My hope is to reach out to the Department of Justice once they
assign somebody [to the case] and open a dialogue with them,"
McDonald told The Post.  "The problem, I think, is not going to be
to find somebody.  The problem is going to be for somebody to get
up to snuff on the case. I mean, the record is staggering."

'America's toughest sheriff'

Sheriff Arpaio, who bills himself as "America's toughest sheriff,"
has long been a polarizing figure, known for his hard-line stance
on illegal immigration and his media-loving exploits, such as
forcing his inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outdoors in
"Tent City Jail."

Love him or hate him, over the past 23 years, nothing has seemed
to tarnish Sheriff Arpaio's popularity in Maricopa County, where
he has been handily reelected sheriff.

Sheriff Arpaio reemerged in the national spotlight last year as an
early supporter of now-Republican presidential candidate Donald
Trump.  The two have some history: Sheriff Arpaio was one of the
first public figures to jump on Mr. Trump's obstinate mission to
"seek the truth" about President Obama's birth certificate.

"You are the only one with the 'guts' to do this," Mr. Trump
scrawled on a printed article about the birther movement to Arpaio
in 2012.  "Keep up the good fight."

More recently, Sheriff Arpaio has campaigned alongside Mr. Trump
in Arizona -- to the chagrin of even some members of their party.
Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) asked the local GOP to renounce
sponsorship of a joint campaign event in the state.

In July, the sheriff was invited to speak on the final night of
the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. There, he
amplified his -- and Mr. Trump's -- tough talk on immigration.

"We have terrorists coming over our border, infiltrating our
communities and causing massive destruction and mayhem. We have
criminals penetrating our weak border security system and
committing serious crime," Sheriff Arpaio told cheering
convention-goers.  "I am supporting Donald Trump because he is a
leader.  He produces results and is the only candidate for
president ready to get tough in order to protect Americans."

Mr. Trump, in turn, has said little publicly about Sheriff Arpaio,
although in January he put out a statement saying he has "great
respect" for the sheriff.

It is unclear what effect, if any, the possible contempt-of-court
charges will have on Sheriff Arpaio's relationship to the Trump
campaign, which seemed to waver slightly on its promise that 11
million illegal immigrants would be booted from the country should
Trump be elected.

Mr. Trump planned to speak in Phoenix on Aug. 31, his fourth
campaign visit to Arizona.

Sheriff Arpaio also planned to speak at the event before
Mr. Trump's appearance, several Arizona media outlets reported.

A long legal saga

The Aug. 26 court filing was just the latest and most significant
step in a years-long legal saga that started when, in 2008, the
American Civil Liberties Union and other groups joined a class-
action lawsuit that alleged a pattern and practice of racial
profiling and unlawful traffic stops by the agency.

The lawsuit triggered findings and actions over several years
against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

First, a preliminary injunction was issued, ordering the deputies
to stop detaining people based solely on their perceived
immigration status.

In 2013, a judge found evidence that Sheriff Arpaio's deputies
were conducting traffic stops using unlawful racial bias, so the
judge issued a supplemental injunction that appointed a court-
ordered monitor to oversee the sheriff's office.

In May, Judge Snow found Sheriff Arpaio and his three associates
in civil contempt of court -- among other findings that included
"multiple misstatements of fact while under oath" and allegations
that Sheriff Arpaio was having a Seattle-based informant
investigate Judge Snow during the trial, KJZZ reported.

In July, another supplemental injunction stripped Sheriff Arpaio's
authority over certain internal affairs cases.

Judge Snow's Aug. 19 referral for a criminal contempt charge
essentially found that Sheriff Arpaio and his agency not only
continued to violate the judge's orders, but did so willfully.

The decision was seen as a hard-won victory for those who have
protested Sheriff Arpaio's law-enforcement tactics for years.
There remains documented evidence of racial bias in arrests and
searches conducted by some MCSO deputies, according to a recent
study by the Arizona State University Center for Violence
Prevention and Community Safety.  The annual report analyzed a
year's worth of MCSO traffic-stop data, from July 2014 through
June 2015, and concluded that more than 10 percent of deputies are
still showing racial bias in their stops.

On Aug. 24, Sheriff Arpaio's campaign manager questioned the
timing of the federal judge's decision, made 10 days before the
Republican primary election.

"I am not impugning his motives or questioning [Judge Snow's]
integrity," campaign manager Chad Willems told the Associated
Press.  "It just seems whenever a major decision comes out, the
timing is curious."

Now it appears that the decision of whether to file criminal
contempt charges against Sheriff Arpaio will rest with Justice
Department.

"The saga of this case, it's incredible," Andre Segura, a senior
lawyer with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, told The Post.
"There are so many layers."

'The racial profiling, the distrust'

Developments in this years-long case have quickly spread through a
network of people who had been watching for every court filing and
judge's ruling "like a hawk," said Arizona state Sen. Martin
Quezada (D).

In downtown Phoenix, it is not uncommon to see protesters outside
Sheriff Arpaio's office.  Throughout the racial-profiling case, an
oversize balloon of Sheriff Arpaio in prison garb and handcuffs
would periodically appear upon the steps of the U.S. district
courthouse there, a few blocks away.

"I think this really signals a kind of a step toward justice after
many, many years of fighting Arpaio in court and dealing with his
targeting of my community and many people in Maricopa County
through his racial profiling," Sen. Quezada told The Post. "The
wheels of justice turn very, very slowly at times, but they do
turn and we achieved a great milestone."

Sen. Quezada, whose legislative district is made up of nearly 70
percent Latino residents, said racial profiling by the Maricopa
County sheriff's deputies has created distrust between the
community and law enforcement.

"We know that if you have brown skin, if you're going to listen to
Spanish music, if you are going to be driving an older vehicle or
in any way look like what the sheriff's department perceives is
anyone who doesn't belong in this country, [then] you're going to
get pulled over regardless of what your immigration status is,"
Sen. Quezada said.  "The corruption and the illegal activities of
the sheriff's department have really tarnished some other good
law-enforcement agencies that aren't out there to harass and
intimidate people."

Any celebration by activist groups over the likelihood that
Sheriff Arpaio may face a criminal trial was quickly tempered by
the realization that their fight was not over, said
Carlos Garcia, director of the human-rights group Puente Movement,
one of several groups that have protested Sheriff Arpaio's
practices for years.

"For us it's very important to remember the victims of Sheriff
Arpaio, the people caught in his raids, who suffered abuse in his
jails," Mr. Garcia told The Post.

On Aug. 22, three days after Judge Snow's referral, members of
Puente and other activists sought to do just that at yet another
downtown Phoenix rally.  They brought the giant Sheriff Arpaio
balloon out once more -- this time to the U.S. attorney's office -
- to make it known that their goal was to see the sheriff
prosecuted.

The crowd included those who previously had been illegally
detained by MCSO deputies, Mr. Garcia told The Post.  Afterward,
three of those women, including two undocumented immigrants, met
with staff members of Leonardo's office to share their
experiences.  The staff told Mr. Garcia, who was there, that they
were taking the matter seriously.

Sheriff Arpaio appeared to sail through Arizona's primary election
on Aug. 23, garnering 66 percent of the votes as of
Aug. 24, according to early results.  Of his three Republican
challengers in the sheriff's race, the next closest was Dan Saban,
with about 26 percent of the votes as of Aug. 24.

On primary day, Sheriff Arpaio told the AP that his strong
connection with voters would help him overcome negative attention
from the case.

John Nance, a Republican, voted for Sheriff Arpaio and told the AP
his opponents wouldn't be an improvement.

"I've liked him all these years, pink underwear and all," Nance
told the AP. "I just think why not ride that horse until it dies."

Sheriff Arpaio now faces what could be his toughest race yet in
the November general election.  In July, the Arizona Republic
reported a new independent poll that showed Democratic candidate
Paul Penzone leading Sheriff Arpaio in the race by three points.

Even if Sheriff Arpaio loses his bid for sheriff, Mr. Garcia and
other activists said that would only be a superficial solution to
the problem.

"I think it's one thing to remove Arpaio by any means, whether
it's going to be through prosecution, he resigned, gets voted
out," Garcia told The Post.  "But it's important that the culture
that he's created goes with him.  The abuse, the racial profiling,
the distrust in the immigrant communities -- all that needs to be
mended."

This post, originally published on Aug. 29, has been updated.


MARK DRISCOLL: Judge Dismisses Civil Racketeering Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Jardine Malado, writing for The Christian Times, reports that U.S.
District Judge James L. Robart dismissed the civil racketeering
lawsuit against pastor Mark Driscoll and former executive elder
Sutton Turner because the plaintiffs did not serve them with the
suit.

Messrs. Driscoll and Turner were accused in February of soliciting
donations and using the money for other purposes.  They motioned
for the dismissal of the case in June when the complainants failed
to serve them within 90 days.

The plaintiffs, Brian Jacobsen, Connie Jacobsen, Ryan Kildea and
Arica Kildea, admitted that they did not have the money to
continue with the case.

"I am grateful to God for the dismissal of these false and
malicious allegations," Mr. Driscoll told The Christian Post.  "I
remain steadfast and committed to preaching the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.  I am forever humbled and thankful for the prayers and
tremendous support of family, friends, and fellow pastors," he
added.

However, the case may still be refiled and brought back to court
because it was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Robart.

"The plaintiffs will be considering our options for moving forward
with this lawsuit," Brian said in an email to Religion News
Service.  "We are ready to refile, if someone stepped up and
offered to fund it.  We will also be considering class action and
contingent fee possibilities," Brian continued.

The plaintiffs tried to raise $70,000 through a crowdfunding
campaign but the donations only amounted to $34,660 as of writing
time.

Judge Robart did not grant the defendants' requests for sanctions
and attorney's fees of $4,240.  The plaintiffs had not "acted in
bad faith, recklessly, or with an improper purpose," the judge
declared in his decision.

Mr. Driscoll resigned as a pastor of Mars Hill in October 2014.
The church's 15 campuses closed down after two months.  He is now
a senior pastor of Trinity Church in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Mr. Turner blogged that he is committed to seek reconciliation and
added that he will not file a counter-suit against the plaintiffs.


MASTERCARD INC: Faces $18.6BB Lawsuit in UK Over Excessive Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Lawless and Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press,
report that MasterCard is being sued for GBP14 billion($18.6
billion) on behalf of British consumers for allegedly charging
excessive fees on millions of transactions over a 16-year period.

The suit, which is the latest in a string of legal cases around
the world over card companies' fees, could bring a payout to 46
million British MasterCard users, the law firm filing it says. The
firm, Quinn Emanuel, says the claim is the largest in British
legal history.

The suit alleges that MasterCard charged stores unlawfully high
fees on credit and debit card transactions between 1992 and 2008,
which were passed on to consumers in the form of inflated prices
for goods and services.

"The filing of this claim is the first step towards consumers
obtaining compensation for what MasterCard did," said
Walter Merricks, a former U.K. financial services ombudsman who
filed the suit through Quinn Emanuel on Sept. 8 at the Competition
Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. Merricks callied it "a watershed moment for consumer redress
in this country."

MasterCard and its larger competitor Visa have been embroiled in
legal battles with merchants over their fees for decades.  A $6
billion class-action lawsuit in the U.S., which involves merchants
suing Visa and MasterCard, is currently being appealed in U.S.
courts.  There's also a legal battle between Visa and retail giant
Wal-Mart, which involves what are known as "chip and sign"
transactions.

Merchants have long argued that the fees that Visa, MasterCard and
to a lesser degree American Express and Discover, charge to
process transactions are too high.  Because Visa and MasterCard
have a near duopoly on credit card transaction processing in most
of the world, merchants say the fees represent anticompetitive
behavior.

The British lawsuit follows a 2014 ruling by the European Union's
highest court backing the EU's move to scrap some fees that
MasterCard allows banks to charge to merchants.

Under Britain's new Consumer Rights Act, all U.K. consumers who
paid the charges and currently live in Britain will automatically
become part of the group of claimants -- and eligible for
compensation -- unless they explicitly opt out.

MasterCard Inc., based in Purchase, New York, said in a statement
that "we continue to firmly disagree with the basis of this claim
and we intend to oppose it vigorously."

The tribunal will rule late this year whether the case can
proceed, the law firm said.  If so, it is expected to go to court
in 2018.


MDL 2196: UFP Technologies Received $432,000 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
UFP Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was a
participant in a class action lawsuit against a number of
polyurethane foam suppliers ("Defendants") that recently reached
settlement.   The suit was filed to recover damages and obtain
injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal antitrust laws with respect to the fixing of prices of
polyurethane foam sold from January 1, 1999 through August, 2010.
The Company received a settlement amount of approximately $432,000
during the three-month period ended June 30, 2016.  The Company
received an additional settlement amount of approximately $1.7
million in July, 2016, which will be recorded in the three-month
period ending September 30, 2016, and which is the final payment
the Company will receive for this settlement. The settlement
amount for the current quarter is recorded as "Material overcharge
settlement" in the operating income section of the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Income.


MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity to Defendants
---------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is not a party to the case, In re: Herbal Supplements
Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No.
1:15-cv-5070, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, which joined in a multidistrict litigation a number of
purported class actions arising from allegations raised by a state
attorney general claiming that DNA barcoding testing conducted on
behalf the attorney general indicated that certain herbal
supplement products did not contain the herbal ingredients stated
on the label. The Company does, however, pursuant to contractual
obligations provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain
of the claims in this litigation. The defendants in this
litigation believe that the claims alleged by the plaintiffs are
meritless and are defending this matter vigorously.


MEDIVATION: Directors Selling Company Too Cheaply, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Medivation shareholders say
in a federal class action in San Francisco that its directors are
selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
Pfizer, for $81.50 a share, or $14 billion.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Padalka, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that a new
class action lawsuit alleges that Merrill Lynch violated state and
federal laws governing overtime pay.

According to the suit, filed by former client associates
Dana Brandes, Stacy Niemiec, Dawn Bradford and Nicole Curtis on
behalf of all current and former such employees at the brokerage
who wish to join the class action, Merrill Lynch encouraged and
occasionally required them to work over 40 hours a week without
additional compensation.

Additionally, the suit alleges that the company failed to properly
record client associates' hours.

The amount of overtime put in by the four plaintiffs ranged from
three hours for Ms. Brandes to 20 or more hours for Ms. Niemiec,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking payment for all unpaid hours, damages
and attorneys' fees, with the claims exceeding $5 million
exclusive of interest and costs, according to the suit.

Ms. Niemiec and Ms. Bradford are suing the firm on a nationwide
level, while Ms. Brandes and Ms. Curtis also bring the suit on
behalf of client associates in New York and Illinois respectively.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Faces Airbag Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated 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 Atmel subsidiary continues to defend the case, In re:
Continental Airbag Products Liability Litigation.

On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division)
against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor
Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The
Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and
Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law-
alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased
vehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporating
allegedly defective application specific integrated circuits
manufactured by our Atmel subsidiary between 2006 and 2010), and
thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss in the value of
their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs are seeking,
individually and on behalf of a putative class, unspecified
compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory penalties, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other
relief.

"Our Atmel subsidiary intends to contest plaintiffs' claims
vigorously," the Company said.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of LFR Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated 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
plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the dismissal judgment in the
Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR")
and LFR Employees.

The Company said, "On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini,
individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees,
filed an action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against our
Atmel subsidiary, our French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S.
("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent.
The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of
its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and
LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than
three years later. The District Court dismissed the case on August
21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016. On July 25, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's
June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief from the dismissal
judgment."


MORGAN TSVANGIRAI: Traders Mull Class Action Over Riots
-------------------------------------------------------
Nqobile Bhebhe, writing for The Africa Report, says Zimbabwe's
former prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai could face an unlikely
class action lawsuit from informal traders in Harare, who claim
their businesses were looted and destroyed by protesters following
protests fronted by the National Electoral Reform Agenda.

Thousands of protesters brought Zimbabwe's capital to a standstill
and engaged in running battles with riot police officers on Aug.
26, in one of the biggest demonstrations against President Robert
Mugabe in years.

The chaotic scenes came after 18 opposition groups and parties
called their supporters to march for reform of the country's
electoral system before going to the polls in 2018.  Most shops
closed early, while a popular informal traders market was razed to
the ground.

Home affairs minister, Ignatius Chombo claimed that opposition
leaders are "foreign agents" using protests to cause chaos in
order to justify international intervention in Zimbabwe.
A lawyer aligned to the ruling Zanu PF, Terrence Hussein contends
that affected business owners have a "strong case" for
compensation.

However, he said; "most insurers are likely to refuse to pay
claims and at law, they are justified to do so.  The victims can,
however, sue the organizers and inciters of the violence and claim
damages".

"However, suing could be expensive for most people, so the quicker
way would be through a law gazetted by parliament to provide for
the compensation of victims," he said.
The ruling party accuses the opposition MDC-T of orchestrating the
violence, but they in turn blame police heavy-handedness for the
riots.

The state controlled Herald on Aug. 29 quoted the National
Chairman of Grassroots Vendors' Association, Alexio Mudzengerere,
saying the looters were spotted wearing MDC-T regalia.

"We want our goods back. Our stalls are our mainstay and we have
no alternative ways of earning a living," he said.  "Why should
the protesters burn our goods? We saw the people who burnt our
goods and we have videos. They were wearing MDC-T T-shirts.

"Some of our members made a follow up of the goods and saw the
looters carrying them into Harvest House (MDC-T headquarters).
Demonstrations should not be allowed.  They do not benefit us at
all.  They are now used as a way to loot shops."

Footage showed youths smashing windows at several retail outlets
forcing frightened employees to scurry for cover inside the
premises.

The police unsuccessfully tried to block an opposition march,
which was cleared by the courts, but this did not stop the cops
from descending on the MDC-T youths, firing teargas and spraying
them with water from cannons.

Boycott

Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko's chain store, Choppies was not
spared.  Mr. Mphoko has angered some Zimbabweans after reports
revealed his long stay at a plush hotel at taxpayers' expense.
Two months ago protestors staged a demonstration inside the hotel
lobby demanding that he vacates the hotel. He has since checked
out.

Independent media outlets have been awash with reports that
Mr. Mphoko has gobbled hundreds of thousands in scarce dollars
through his hotel stay, while refusing to move into a government
issued house.

Meanwhile, plans are underway to boycott all business ventures
owned by Zanu PF members including President Robert Mugabe's Alpha
and Omega company dairy products, Vice President Emmerson
Mnangagwa's Zuva Petroleum and Mr. Mphoko's Choppies Supermarkets.

"We are planning something.  This is no longer a secret now
because this is a bare knuckle fight," MDC-T secretary general,
Douglas Mwonzora, told privately run NewsDay.

"We want to embark on a massive consumer boycott, boycotting
products, shops, businesses of people who are corruptly benefiting
from the Zanu PF regime and those people who are involved in human
rights abuses."


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bid for More Time to Seek Rehearing Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that New GM's
request to the Second Circuit for an extension of time to seek
rehearing by the panel that issued the Threshold Issues Appeal
Decision and by all of the active judges of the Second Circuit
remains pending before the court.

In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 3, 2016, New GM
disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled
approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or
to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and
had recalled an additional 33.8 million vehicles to address
certain electrical and other safety concerns, including
approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition
keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles
to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall.

Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were
manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date,
the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of
Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed.

In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed July 21, 2016, New GM
also disclosed that, as of July 15, 2016, 100 putative class
actions were pending against New GM in various federal and state
trial courts in the United States seeking compensatory and other
damages for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more
of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition
of vehicles covered by those recalls. Certain of these 100 cases,
or the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition
Switch Recall, certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss
Actions, concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall,
and yet others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or
more other recalls (such actions are described interchangeably as
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions or Other Economic Loss
Actions).

In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of July 15, 2016, 285
actions were pending against New GM in various federal and state
courts in the United States seeking compensatory and other damages
for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from
accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of
the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM. Certain
of these 285 cases, or the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall, certain other cases,
or the Other Personal Injury Actions, concern recalls other than
the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others concern both the
Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls (such actions
are described herein interchangeably as Ignition Switch Personal
Injury Actions or Other Personal Injury Actions).

Since June 2014, 307 Recall-Related Actions have been transferred
to the United States District Court of the Southern District of
New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a
single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding.
Since September 17, 2015, New GM has reached various agreements
with certain personal injury claimants regarding possible
settlement of their claims.

Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has
taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the subject Recall-
Related Actions. In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New
GM filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to
enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale
Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order
(under which all product liability and property damage claims
arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were
to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims), or the Motions
to Enforce.

Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series
of scheduling orders which identified a number of "threshold
issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including (i)
whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in
connection with the 363 Transaction, (ii) if such due process
rights were violated, what is the appropriate remedy, (iii)
whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall-
Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust,
and (iv) whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC
Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The GUC Trust
appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's Motions
to Enforce and filed briefs in opposition thereto, asserting that
none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related
Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust.

On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision, or
the Threshold Issues Decision, on the threshold issues holding
(among other things) that the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions may seek authorization to file late claims in the
bankruptcy cases of Old GM, but that any such claims as against
the GUC Trust are "equitably moot" (that is, fashioning relief for
the plaintiffs against the GUC Trust would be "impractical,
imprudent and therefore inequitable"), and thus the assets of the
GUC Trust cannot be used to satisfy such claims, or the Equitable
Mootness Finding.

On June 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment, or the
Threshold Issues Judgment, which clarifies the terms of the
Threshold Issues Decision and distills the Bankruptcy Court's
holdings into a binding order. The Threshold Issues Judgment
provides, in pertinent part, that:

(i) The plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
suffered a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order,
whereas the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions did not suffer a due process violation with respect to the
Sale Order;

(ii) As a result of the due process violation, the provisions of
the Sale Order which purport to shield New GM from any liability
associated with its independent post-Sale actions can be modified,
and the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
may proceed against New GM with respect to its independent post-
Sale actions;

(iii) Any claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions that
relate to actions of Old GM are enjoined from being pursued
against New GM on successor liability grounds;

(iv) Given the Equitable Mootness Finding, the assets of the GUC
Trust cannot be utilized to satisfy any claims that may be filed
by plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and
Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions after the date of entry of
the Threshold Issues Judgment; and

(v) Pursuant to section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code, assets of
the GUC Trust may be used to satisfy previously allowed or
disallowed claims that are reconsidered for cause. Hence, any
person who holds a previously allowed or disallowed claim may seek
to have that claim reconsidered by the Bankruptcy Court, and in
the event that any such claimant prevails in an application for
reconsideration, the resulting additional allowed claims could
dilute the recoveries of holders of GUC Trust Units.

The Equitable Mootness Finding became binding on plaintiffs in the
Other Economic Loss Actions and Other Personal Injury Actions
pursuant to a decision and order of the Bankruptcy Court dated
September 3, 2015. In addition, following entry of the Threshold
Issues Judgment, certain plaintiffs filed amended complaints in
the MDL Proceeding on June 12, 2015, July 19, 2015 and December
17, 2015.

Certain plaintiffs in the Recall-Related Actions appealed the
Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment, and New
GM and the GUC Trust each filed cross-appeals with respect to the
Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment. On
September 22, 2015, the Second Circuit entered an order granting a
direct appeal of the Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold
Issues Judgment to the Second Circuit. Pursuant to later
scheduling orders entered by the Second Circuit, briefing
commenced on November 16, 2015 and concluded on February 22, 2016.
The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals and cross
appeals on March 15, 2016.

On July 13, 2016, the Second Circuit reached a decision in the
appeal, or the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision. In the Threshold
Issues Appeal Decision, the Second Circuit held, in pertinent
part, that plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions involved in pre-closing accidents, or the Pre-Closing
Accident Plaintiffs, and plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions who acquired their vehicles pre-closing were
entitled to, but did not receive, direct-mail notice of the Sale
because Old GM "knew or reasonably should have known about the
ignition switch defect prior to bankruptcy." The Second Circuit
also noted that it could not say with fair assurance that the
outcome of the Sale would have been the same had Old GM given
plaintiffs adequate notice of the ignition switch defect and the
Sale, and these plaintiffs voiced their objections to those
provisions of the Sale Order barring their claims against New GM.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled that enforcing the Sale
Order against the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs and the Ignition
Switch Plaintiffs would violate their procedural due process
rights in these circumstances, and therefore, they cannot be bound
by the terms of the Sale Order. As a result, the court held that
those plaintiffs are not enjoined from pursuing claims against New
GM.

The Second Circuit further held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to issue its Equitable Mootness
Finding because no plaintiff has asserted a claim against the GUC
Trust. Therefore, the Second Circuit held, the Bankruptcy Court's
Equitable Mootness Finding was purely advisory. The Second Circuit
did not, however, express any opinion as to the merits of whether
claims against the GUC Trust would be equitably moot if brought
against the GUC Trust.

In addition, the Second Circuit held that the Sale Order cannot
enjoin independent claims relating to New GM's post-Sale conduct.
It also held that claims by plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions who bought used GM vehicles post-Sale are
not bound by the Sale Order and, therefore, are not enjoined from
pursuing claims against New GM for their losses, because those
claimants lacked a pre-Sale connection to Old GM at the time Old
GM filed its bankruptcy petition.

The Second Circuit remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for it to
conduct further proceedings as to claims by plaintiffs in Other
Personal Injury Actions and Other Economic Loss Actions.

On July 20, 2016, New GM asked the Second Circuit for an extension
of time to seek rehearing by the panel that issued the Threshold
Issues Appeal Decision and by all of the active judges of the
Second Circuit. The GUC Trust did not oppose that request, which
remains pending before the court. Rehearing is not frequently
granted. If rehearing is granted, then the Threshold Issues Appeal
Decision would be vacated and the Second Circuit would issue a new
decision. That new decision may reach the same conclusions as the
Threshold Issues Appeal Decision, different conclusions as the
Threshold Issues Appeal Decision, or a mix of both. If rehearing
is not granted, New GM has said that it will pursue a petition for
a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States.


NIANTIC INC: Fla. Condo Assoc. Sues Over Pokemon Go Pokestop
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a South Florida
condominium association has sued the companies behind Pokemon Go,
claiming that crowds of people playing the "augmented reality"
game at night have forced the property owners to hire off-duty
police officers to handle security.

The owners' association of The Villas of Positano, a 62-unit
oceanfront condominium complex in Hollywood, Florida, claims that
the property's designation as a Pokestop within the game has led
to "out of control crowds" behaving "like zombies, walking around
bumping into things" on site.

The complaint, filed on Sept. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, is part of a wave of litigation
by lawyers at Pomerantz against San Francisco-based developer
Niantic and two of the game's financial backers.

According to the suit, players have been drawn to the Villas to
capture rare Pokemon creatures programmed to spawn within the game
late at night or during the early morning hours.

"Pokemon Go players stayed for hours each night, leaving garbage
in their wake," wrote Pomerantz's Jennifer Pafiti in the 19-page
complaint.  "Moreover, as the Villas and nearby boardwalk lack
public bathroom facilities, many Pokemon Go players used the
Villas' landscaping as a toilet during their nightly incursions."

According to the complaint, the developer of The Villas has made
multiple requests to Niantic for the property to be removed as a
Pokestop but has only received form responses.  The Pomerantz
lawyers wrote that the company has hired off-duty police officers
to patrol the premises from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.

Like two earlier suits filed by the firm on behalf of a
New Jersey homeowner and a Michigan couple, the complaint filed on
Sept. 2 asks to certify a class action on behalf of all U.S. real
estate owners whose property lies on or near the GPS coordinates
of a Pokestop or Pokemon gym.  Plaintiffs lawyers point out in the
suits that the in-game sites, where players get items to help
capture and feed Pokemon or fight virtual "battles" with other
players, have popped up in spots such as cemeteries and the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

The suit, which names Niantic, The Pokemon Co. and Nintendo Co.
Ltd., brings nuisance claims and seeks damages for unjust
enrichment.  According to the complaint, The Pokemon Co., and
Nintendo Co. hold a financial stake in the game. The suit claims
that all the defendants have profited from creating "a more
immersive gaming experience" by encouraging players to venture
onto private property.

A Cooley team led by partner Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com
-- has signed on to defend Niantic and a team from Greenberg
Traurig has made an appearance on behalf of The Pokemon Co.

Mr. Rhodes and the company declined to comment.  Pomerantz's
Pafiti didn't immediately respond to an email message.


OCWEN LOAN: "Delgado" Suit Sent to Trial on Existence of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARGARITA DELGADO, WILLIAM SHEPPARD, NAIHUAI
XU, GERALDINE MAHOOD, KEVIN CHOWNING, LYA CHOWNING, PAUL EMMERT,
CAROLYN TOTH, BRIAN RAFACZ, JENNIFER HENDRICKS, CYNTHIA BENIWAL,
KIMBERLY KAYES, BRETT BALLARD, DEREK WILLIS, KATELYN WILLIS,
LAURIE CHEAMITRU, DALE ZIMMER, MICHAEL BENHAMU, MEGHAN FOX, DAN
WILKINSON, KENT COLLIER, BARBARA LIGHTCAP, WILLIAM LIGHTCAP,
THERESA MCCULLOUGH, BEN ELLIOTT, JASON ABT, MELANIE BORTHWICK,
NATHAN MAY, CAMI PELOZA, and TERRY OLIVER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, CROSS COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC., SANDRA
FINN, AND "JOHN DOES 1-10," Defendants, No. 13-CV-4427 (NGG) (ST)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis issued an order:

     -- denying the defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs'
        notices of supplemental authority;

     -- denying without prejudice the motion filed by Cross
        Country Home Services, Inc. and Cross Country's President
        Sandra Finn (together "Cross Country") to stay and compel
        arbitration; and

     -- denying without prejudice the defendants' motion to
        dismiss.

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against the
defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Cross Country, and John Does
1-10, claiming that the defendants engaged in a deceptive check
solicitation scheme that led the plaintiffs and other consumers
unknowingly to enroll in, and pay monthly fees for, Cross
Country's membership and home warranty plans.  The plaintiffs
brought the following causes of action: violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); unjust
enrichment under the laws of New York, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado,
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington; breach
of fiduciary duty under the laws of Alabama, Arizona, California,
Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio,
Virginia, and Washington; and violations of multiple state
consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes

The defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.
Cross Country filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration
directed at 13 plaintiffs, as well as motions to strike notices of
supplemental authority which the plaintiffs submitted in
opposition to the arbitration motion.

As an initial matter, Judge Garaufis denied Cross Country's
motions to strike the two notices of supplemental authority that
the plaintiffs have filed subsequent to completion of the briefing
on the arbitration motion.  The judge noted that while the court's
individual rules require parties to file motion papers in
accordance with a court-approved briefing schedule, there is no
such requirement for notices of supplemental authority.  The judge
stated that while it would be ideal for parties to discover and
submit all relevant case law before a motion is fully briefed,
"[i]t is fairly standard practice for parties to occasionally send
letters or to otherwise file supplemental authority after briefing
is complete."

Cross Country moved to compel arbitration only as to those
plaintiffs who enrolled through the check solicitation in either
the Referral Assistant 24 membership plan or the Systems MD Gold
Home Warranty Plan, namely: Carolyn Toth and Brian Rafacz of
Arizona; Cynthia Beniwal and Kimberly Kayes of Georgia; Derek and
Katelyn Willis of Indiana; Michael Benhamu of New Jersey; Theresa
McCullough of Pennsylvania; Ben Elliott of Tennessee; Matthew and
Cami Peloza and Terry Oliver of Washington; Dan Wilkinson of New
Mexico; and Brett Ballard of Idaho.  Cross Country sought to
enforce the provisions of the particular home service agreements,
which Cross Country maintained provide for the mandatory
arbitration of all disputes.

In their opposition to the motion the plaintiffs framed their
argument as one alleging fraud in the factum, otherwise known as
fraud in the execution of the contract, arguing that they cannot
be compelled to arbitrate their dispute because no contract exists
between them and Cross Country at all.

Judge Garaufis found that the plaintiffs have provided sufficient
evidence to substantiate their allegations of fraud in the factum
and that issues of fact remain that prevent the court from
determining the existence of a contract as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the judge denied without prejudice Cross Country's
motion to stay and compel arbitration, and ordered for the case to
proceed to trial on the issue of whether the parties formed
binding contracts.  Judge Garaufis stated that should the trier of
fact determine that the contracts are not void, Cross Country may
renew its motion to stay and compel arbitration.

The defendants also moved jointly to dismiss several of the newly
added claims in the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6).  However, Judge
Garaufis found that a motion to dismiss is premature given the
ongoing arbitration dispute and pending trial regarding contract
formation.

A full-text copy of Judge Garaufis' September 2, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/CBOC80 from Leagle.com.

Margarita Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by J. Christopher Jensen
-- jcj@cll.com -- Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C..

Margarita Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Steven L. Wittels --
slw@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels, James
Burkett McInturff, III -- jbm@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of
Steven L. Wittels & Tiasha Palikovic -- tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com
-- Wittels Law, P.C..

William Sheppard, Naihuai Xu, Geraldine Mahood, Plaintiffs,
represented by J. Christopher Jensen, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman,
P.C., Steven L. Wittels, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels & James
Burkett McInturff, III, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels.

Barbara Lightcap, Michael Benhamu, Cami Peloza, Carolyn Toth,
Brett Ballard, William Lightcap, Brian Rafacz, Terry Oliver,
Nathan May, Kevin Chowning, Melanie Borthwick, Lya Chowning, Kent
Collier, Ben Elliott, Dan Wilkinson, Theresa McCullough, Laurie
Cheamitru, Jennifer Hendricks, Paul Emmert, Katelyn Willis, Derek
Willis, Dale Zimmer, Jason Abt, Kimberly Kayes, Cynthia Beniwal,
Plaintiffs, represented by J. Christopher Jensen, Cowan, Liebowitz
& Latman, P.C. & Steven L. Wittels, Law Offices of Steven L.
Wittels.

Meghan Fox, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin F. Johns --
benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP & Steven L.
Wittels, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Caroline
Kathryn Eisner -- ceisner@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler
LLP, Matthew P. Previn -- mprevin@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley
Sandler LLP & Timothy Coley -- tcoley@buckleysandler.com --
BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice.

Cross Country Home Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce
E. Alexander -- alexander@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC, Jason Wayne McElroy -- mcelroy@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC, Michael S. Trabon -- trabon@thewbkfirm.com --
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice, Mitchel H. Kider --
kider@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC & Timothy P. Ofak,
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice.

Sandra Finn, Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Alexander, Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC, Jason Wayne McElroy, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC &
Michael S. Trabon, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Racketeering Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Lane, writing for Housing Wire, reports that it'd be pretty
safe to say that the last few years have been rough for Ocwen
Financial.

Ocwen's troubles began in earnest late in 2014 when the New York
Department of Financial Services forced William Erbey to resign
from his position as chairman of the board of directors of Ocwen,
and four associated companies, over allegations into Ocwen's
servicing practices and its relationships with its affiliated
companies.

But more importantly for the company, which is built on mortgage
servicing, the NYDFS settlement prohibited Ocwen from acquiring
any new mortgage servicing rights without approval from the NYDFS.

Mr. Erbey's forced departure and Ocwen's subsequent troubles with
the California Department of Business Oversight, which eventually
led to the company being prohibited from acquiring new mortgage
servicing rights in California without CDBO approval, sent Ocwen's
stock into a tailspin.

Ocwen's stock, which once closed trading at nearly $60 per share
(in October 2013), fell throughout 2014, 2015 and into 2016, all
the way to $1.52 per share in July of this year.

But for the first time in a long time, Ocwen is on a bit of a
winning streak.

In July, when Ocwen posted its second quarter earnings (another
quarterly loss, by the way), company executives stated that they
believed the nonbank could return to profitability as it puts
"legacy" issues behind it.

One of the issues facing Ocwen was a threat that New Residential
Investment could pull subservicing rights from Ocwen based upon
Ocwen's servicer rankings from Standard & Poor's.  But that threat
disappeared after S&P upgraded Ocwen's servicer rankings, citing a
number of internal operational improvements undertaken at the
nonbank.

Ocwen also disclosed during its second quarter earnings that it is
it trying to buy its way out from under the servicing restrictions
placed upon it by its settlement with the CDBO, going so far as to
set aside $15 million in the second quarter to pay for a potential
settlement.

But it's not all sunshine and roses for Ocwen either.  In fact,
sometimes it feels like it's two steps forward, two steps back for
the beleaguered nonbank.

Recently, Ocwen agreed to pay $900,000 to the state of Washington
after an investigation conducted by the state found that Ocwen
used unlicensed companies in India and the Philippines to service
mortgage loans.

And more good/bad news came out for Ocwen, when a federal judge
dismissed a racketeering lawsuit against the nonbank.

According to Reuters and Westlaw News, Ocwen stood accused of
"overcharging thousands of homeowners for property inspections as
well as taking kickbacks" from a scheme that allegedly involved
Ocwen and Altisource Portfolio Solutions, a company that is
closely affiliated with Ocwen.

The Reuters report provides scant details, but a review of the
court filing shows that a pair of homeowners sought class action
status and sued Ocwen and Altisource for allegedly overcharging
for property inspection and broker price opinions, with Altisource
allegedly providing "kickbacks" to Ocwen in exchange for using its
services and passing those increased costs onto the borrowers.

The plaintiffs in the case claimed that Ocwen, Erbey and
Altisource engaged in an "abusive, predatory and illegal home
mortgage loan servicing business," and in some cases, performed
multiple property inspections and BPOs to "run up unnecessary
fees."

The good news for Ocwen is that the lawsuit was dismissed, as in
the eyes of the judge, the plaintiffs' claims didn't hold water.
Specifically, the judge said the plaintiffs' case "failed to
allege facts that are sufficient to make out a viable claim for
relief."

But Ocwen didn't get off scot-free.  In fact, the judge called the
charges levied against Ocwen and Altisource "extremely troubling,"
as the plaintiffs allegations are "bolstered" by other consent
orders and settlements Ocwen has previously entered into, like in
New York, for example.


PAUL MICHAEL: Faces "Schacher" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Paul Michael Marketing Service,
Inc. The case is captioned Caryn Schacher, mother and parent on
behalf of minor-plaintiff SAMMY SCHACHER and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff. v. Paul Michael Marketing Service, Inc.
d/b/a PAUL MICHAEL ASSOCIATES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04926 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 2, 2016).

Paul Michael is a collection agency offering financial and
insurance services, and business administration services.

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Class Action vs. Radiancy Pending in D.C. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
is proceeding against Radiancy.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev
Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon
and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who
purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various
violations of state business and consumer protection codes
including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade
practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The
complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or,
alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing
in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date,
Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this
matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached.

On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety
for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed
with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business
Law Sec.349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were
dismissed without prejudice.

The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions
against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the
Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional
discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to
amend the complaint.

Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend
themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit.

On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs' attorneys refiled their putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against only the Company's subsidiary,
Radiancy, Inc. The claims of the suit are virtually identical to
the claims originally considered, and dismissed without prejudice,
by the same Court.

A companion suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, raising the same claims on
behalf of plaintiffs from New York and West Virginia against
Radiancy and its President, Dr. Dolev Rafaeli. That New York case
was removed to the D.C. Court and the cases were consolidated into
one action.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Dr.
Rafaeli and Radiancy; on August 1, 2016, the D.C. Court granted
the dismissal of the case against Dr. Rafaeli, with prejudice, and
decided to allow the action against Radiancy to proceed. The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this suit.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Underway in California Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has now
commenced in a class action against Radiancy in California.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint;
the case is now in the discovery phase.

On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case
has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has
now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over Jan
Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, President. The suit
was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten
different states, including California, who purchased Radiancy's
no!no! hair products and alleges various violations of state
business and consumer protection codes including false and
misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of
express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification
of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as
subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states...

The Company's Motion to Remove the Cantley case had been stayed
pending resolution of the Mouzon litigation; now that the Court in
Mouzon has issued its opinion regarding the Company's Motion to
Dismiss, the California Court has granted the Company's Motion to
Remove the Cantley case to the Federal Court for the District of
Columbia. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend
themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in
this action.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PJT PARTNERS: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit by Sept. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-02841 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Valerie E Caproni on Aug. 15
entered an order adjourning the initial pre-trial conference and
case management plan.

The Court directed Gregory G. Barrett, the Lead Plaintiff, to file
an amended complaint by September 23, 2016. Defendants shall file
an answer or a motion to dismiss by October 24, 2016.

If Defendants move to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff shall file its
opposition brief by November 23, 2016, and Defendants shall file a
reply brief by December 9, 2016.

The Initial Pretrial Conference previously scheduled for August
19, 2016 is adjourned pending further Court Order. The parties'
deadline to submit a joint Case Management Plan shall also be
adjourned pending further Court Order.

On Aug. 3, 2016, Judge Caproni entered an order granting Barrett's
Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and to Appoint Counsel.

Through his Complaint, Barrett seeks to certify a class consisting
of "all persons other than [D]efendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired [PJT Partners Inc.] securities between November 12, 2015
and March 28, 2016" and suffered damages as a result of
Defendants' alleged misconduct.  In short, Barrett alleges that he
and other investors suffered losses when PJT's stock price
plummeted following the arrest of Defendant Andrew W.W. Caspersen,
a former managing partner of PJT's affiliate, in connection with a
$95 million criminal scheme to defraud investors.

PJT Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on April 15, 2016,
Barrett filed in the Southern District of New York a putative
class action for violation of the federal securities laws against
defendants PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen in an
action styled Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew
W. W. Caspersen, No. 1:16-cv-02841-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). Generally, the
complaint alleges that PJT Partners Inc. made misstatements about
its business, operational and compliance policies and its
compliance and fraud-prevention controls. These alleged
misstatements allegedly caused members of the putative class,
investors who purchased PJT Partners common stock during the class
period, November 12, 2015 to March 28, 2016, to pay an inflated
price for PJT Partners common stock. The complaint alleges claims
under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT
Partners Inc. and Caspersen, and under 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Caspersen.

On June 14, 2016, plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel. No opposition to the motion was filed.

"We believe that this shareholder action is without merit and will
defend it vigorously."


PRECISE PAYROLL: Faces "Goebel" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Precise Payroll, LLC. The case is
captioned GOEBEL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY-SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, v. PRECISE PAYROLL, LLC
and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04775-ER
(E.D.N.Y., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Eduardo C.
Robreno.

Precision Payroll provides personalized payroll services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ann M. Caldwell, Esq.
          CALDWELL LAW OFFICE LLC
          108 W. Willow Grove Avenue, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19118
          Telephone: (215) 248 2030
          Facsimile: (215) 248 2031
          E-mail: acaldwell@classactlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Dismisses "Hallihan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel dismissed with prejudice the case
captioned SUZANNE HALLIHAN and MICHAEL HALLIHAN, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-
CV-01068-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

On July 30, 2015, Suzanne and Michael Hallihan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a three-count
class action complaint against Progressive in the Circuit Court of
St. Clair County, Illinois, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation
and/or omission, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in
relation to Progressive's sale of policies containing minimum
Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage.  The Hallihans asserted that
Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is "wholly illusory" since the
coverage limits are equal to the bodily injury liability coverage
required in Illinois.

Progressive moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the complaint fails as a matter
of law because Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is not illusory,
Progressive properly denied Suzanne Hallihan's UIM claim, and
Progressive did not engage in any deceptive or unfair practice.
Progressive also argued that the Hallihans have failed to allege
facts stating a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation and/or
omission, for unjust enrichment, or for a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Reviewing the policy language at hand, Judge Rosenstengel
concluded that Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is not illusory.
The judge found that while there may be situations where a
claimant is unable to recover under his or her minimum UIM policy,
that does not mean he or she is never able to recover under it.

Because Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is not worthless or
illusory, Judge Rosenstengel held that the Hallihans have failed
to state a claim for a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, for fraudulent
misrepresentation and/or omission, or for unjust enrichment, and
can prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would
entitle them to relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's September 6, 2016
memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/piaJTj from
Leagle.com.

Suzanne Hallihan, Michael Hallihan, Plaintiffs, represented by
James J. Rosemergy, Carey & Danis, L.L.C., Andrew G. Mundwiller,
Cagle Law Firm, LLC.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Nelson -- michael.nelson@sutherland.com -- Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan, Kymberly Kochis --
kymberly.kochis@sutherland.com -- Sutherland Asbill & Brennan &
Emily E. Cantwell -- ecantwell@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage
LLP.


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Expert Calls on Gov't to Help Seaweed Farmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yohanes Seo, writing for Tempo.co, reports that some 13,000
seaweed farmers in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) seek the government's
help in their class action lawsuit against the PTTEP Australasia
at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney, an international law
expert at Nusa Cendana University (Undana) Kupang DW Tadeus said.
Tadeus said the government can revoke operational permit and
freeze the assets of the Thailand-based oil company in Indonesia.

The government can also cancel the 1997 agreement between
Indonesia and Australia.  "It can be cancelled since it has not
been ratified by the two countries' parliaments," Tadeus said on
Monday, August 29, 2016.

A class action has been filed following the explosion of Montara
oil rig in the Timor waters on August 21, 2009.  Local fishermen
and seaweed farmers have suffered due to Timor waters pollution.

Advocacy support has been provided to fishermen and seaweed
farmers by Yayasan Peduli Timor Barat (YPTB) led by Ferdi Tanoni.
The case was registered on August 3, 2016, at the Federal Court of
Australia in Sydney and the first trial was held on August 22,
2016.

According to Tadeus, the case is an important lesson for
Indonesia, because Timor waters are home to a lot of oil
companies.  "Marine areas must also be preserved, because similar
cases to that of Montara could also happen in the future," Tadeus
said.

The oil spill has destroyed people's seaweed farming in East Nusa
Tenggara coastal area, such as in the south of Timor Island, Rote
Ndao, Alor, Sabu Raijua, Sumba and part of Flores and Lembata.
Fish production has declined sharply which has led around 70
percent fishermen in Oesapa to leave Kupang and seek new waters in
Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Sumatra.  The Indonesian government,
however, has yet to make any response.


RACKSPACE HOSTING: Law Firm Probes Breach of Fiduciary Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Aug. 29
disclosed that it is investigating potential breach of fiduciary
duty claims against the Board of Directors of Rackspace Hosting,
Inc. ("Rackspace" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the
Company to affiliates of private equity firm Apollo Global
Management LLC ("Apollo").  On August 26, 2016, the two parties
announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to
which Apollo will acquire Rackspace in a merger in a deal worth
$4.3 billion.  As a result of the merger, Rackspace shareholders
are only anticipated to receive $32.00 per share in cash in
exchange for each share of Rackspace.

Andrews & Springer's investigation so far has revealed that the
consideration Rackspace are expected to receive is inadequate.
While the Company claims that shareholders will receive a premium
for their shares, the merger price is only 6% above Rackspace's
August 25, 2016 closing price of $30.19 per share.  In addition,
the consideration is less than the $38.00 per share price target
given by Cowen Company in August 2016, several weeks before the
merger was announced. The $32.00 per share consideration is also
2.62% below Rackspace's 52-week high of $32.84. Our investigation
has also revealed that the process leading up to the announcement
of the merger appears to have significant conflicts of interest
thus making the process and consideration unfair.

If you own shares of Rackspace and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/rackspace-class-action-investigation or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013.  You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct.


RALPHS GROCERY: Sued by Laface for Not Giving Seats to Cashiers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JILL LAFACE, individually, and as a representative of all others
similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, THE KROGER CO., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC632679 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., September 1, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
failed to provide the Plaintiff and other checkers and cashiers
with seats as required by the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order 7-200, Section 14.

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company is a California grocery store
chain operating throughout the state of California and in the
County of Los Angeles.  The Kroger Co. is a corporation doing
business in the state of California, as an owner of grocery
stores.  Ralphs is a subsidiary of Kroger.  The Plaintiff does not
know the names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW O'FFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 247-9111
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


RELIABLE REXALL: Faces "Oliveira" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against RELIABLE REXALL SUNSET PHARMACY.
The case is titled OLIVEIRA, MEGAN INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
RELIABLE REXALL SUNSET PHARMACY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
RELIABLE REXALL DRUGS A CALIFORNIA COMPANY OF FORM UNKNOWN, HUDSON
DEVELOPMENT INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, CHING, SAMUEL C. H AN
INDIVIDUAL, and DOES 1-500, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC 16 554023 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016).

Reliable Rexall sells dermatological solutions, ointments, creams,
lotions, suppositories, and progesterone.


RESOURCE AMERICA: Faces "Gansman" Actions in Pennsylvania Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resource America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on June 15, 2016, a
putative class action lawsuit, Gansman v. Resource America, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 160601492, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County by a purported stockholder of Resource
America. The lawsuit challenged aspects of Resource America's
proposed merger (the "merger") with a wholly owned subsidiary of
C-III Capital Partners LLC ("C-III") pursuant to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of May 22, 2016,
by and among Resource America, C-III and Regent Acquisition Inc.
("Merger Sub"), and sought, among other items, to enjoin the
merger.

On July 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a stipulation with the Court
seeking an order discontinuing the action without prejudice which
was granted on August 9, 2016.

On July 14, 2016, the same plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Gansman v. Resource America, Inc., et al., Case No., 16-
3820, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania and named Resource America, its board of
directors, C-III and Merger Sub as defendants (the "second
lawsuit"). The second lawsuit seeks recissory damages and to
enjoin the merger and alleges, among other things, that the Proxy
Statement omits certain information alleged by the plaintiff to be
material, including certain financial forecasts prepared by
Resource America's management, and certain analyses prepared by
Resource America's financial advisor.


RHONDA J. SAUNDERS: Calvary Suit Moved to S.D.W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------
Calvary SPV I, LLC, as assignee of Capital One Bank, N.A., the
Plaintiff, v. Rhonda J. Saunders, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. 16-C-518,
was removed from the Raleigh County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(Beckley). The Southern District assigned Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:16-cv-08527 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Lewis Shuman, Jr., Esq.
          Nicholas P. Mooney, II, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340 3800
          Facsimile: (304) 340 3801
          E-mail: dshuman@spilmanlaw.com
                  nmooney@spilmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
          Ralph C. Young, Esq.
          Steven R. Broadwater, Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
          P. O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          Facsimile: (304) 574 3709
          E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
                  jnolan@hamiltonburgess.com
                  ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
                  sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com


RICHMOND AMERICAN: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Blasting
-------------------------------------------------------------
As Diana Battista goes through her Southern Highlands home she
points out the damage to News 3.  Inside her home, cracked
travertine tiles were seen and on the outside is cracked cement
and separation of stucco.

Dozens of homeowners said blasts from explosions are damaging
their homes.

"All the sudden we have cracks show up and we have this blasting
going on," said Ms. Battista.

Developers are blasting to make way for Highland Hills Development
Project.  Homeowners got a letter saying geological conditions
prohibit them from using normal construction methods and blast
levels are being monitored to prevent damage.

Homeowners said they are looking into a Class Action Lawsuit.

Attorney Matthew Callister of Callister and Associates said
residents were told the damage they were suffering is not the
result of the blasting, but of natural settling.  But
Mr. Callister said settling occurs the first two years the home is
built these homes are 13-years-old.

Mr. Callister, an attorney for 30 years, said as many as 40
homeowners could be a part of a possible Class Action Lawsuit
against Richmond American Homes and other site contractors.

"None of these problems occurred until we started blasting about a
month ago, now we have 30 . . . 50 neighbors reporting almost
identical problems to the interior and exterior to their homes,"
said Mr. Callister.


RJ REYNOLDS: Settles Class Action Over Camel Cash-C Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., on Aug. 30 disclosed that the
settlement offer in the class action lawsuit Sateriale v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., United States District Court for the Central
District of California, commenced on August 1, 2016. Participation
in the settlement offer is open to members of the Class, which is
defined as "[a]ll persons in California who, as adult smokers,
were assigned registration numbers by RJR, collected C-Notes, and
held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006." To participate in the
settlement offer, please visit www.saterialesettlement.com

Pursuant to the Settlement, R.J. Reynolds has commenced a Camel
Cash Settlement Offer and will allow Class members to redeem Camel
Cash C-Notes for specified non-tobacco merchandise, pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement.  Class members who no longer have
their C-Notes may redeem up to 1,125 C-Notes if they attest to the
possession of C-Notes as of October 1, 2006.  Class members who
still possess C-Notes that were in their possession as of October
1, 2006, may redeem up to 3,000 C-Notes.  All Class members must
satisfy additional requirements of the offer.

Class members who wish to participate in the Camel Cash Settlement
Offer may do so by visiting www.saterialesettlement.com

The Camel Cash Settlement Offer commenced on August 1, 2016, and
will run through January 31, 2017.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For
additional information, please go to www.bespc.com or
www.camelcashsettlement.com


ROSARIO'S INC: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Orlando C. Sandoval, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Rosario's, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03021 (D. Md., August 30, 2016), seeks
all unpaid wages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and
equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage
and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Rosario's, Inc. is a restaurant in Baltimore, Maryland where
Sandoval worked as a line cook.

Defendant is represented by:

      Judd G. Millman, Esq.
      Bruce M. Luchansky, Esq.
      Samuel C. Pinsky, Esq.
      LUCHANSKY LAW
      606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 522-1020
      Facsimile: (410) 522-1021
      Email: judd@luchanskylaw.com
             lucky@luchanskylaw.com
             sam@luchanskylaw.com


SAHOTACORP: Sued Over Regent Hotel Maintenance Issues
-----------------------------------------------------
Travis Lupick, writing for The Georgia Straight, reports that a
lawsuit filed on August 29 describes deplorable conditions at one
of the Downtown Eastside's shabby hotels.

The legal action, an application for a class-action lawsuit that
could involve many or even all of the building's tenants, concerns
the Regent Hotel, which stands near the southwest corner of Main
and East Hastings streets.  It targets four members of the Sahota
family, well known for owning and operating several low-income
hotels throughout the Downtown Eastside.

The four family members are Kirin Sahota, Gurdyal Sahota, Pal
Sahota, and Parkash Sahota.

A long list of grievances is detailed in the applicant's notice of
claim.  They include a lack of heat, lack of hot water, leaking
roof, crumbling fa‡ade, rat infestation, broken elevator, and
impassable fire escape, among other problems.

"There are serious health and safety issues resulting from the
Sahotas' failure to maintain the Regent," the notice of claim
reads.

"The Sahotas have consistently ignored serious infractions of the
Standards of Maintenance Bylaw and have consistently ignored the
few orders sporadically made by the City of Vancouver."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.  The defendants
have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the applicants'
notice of claim.

Also named in the lawsuit are Sahotacorp, Triville Enterprises
Ltd., and Yang-myung Hotel Management Ltd., the last two of which
are described as entities involved in day-to-day operations at the
Regent, as well as the City of Vancouver, which is accused of
failing to enforce work orders related to maintenance at the
Regent.

"The City of Vancouver is fully aware of all of the health and
safety issues at the Regent and has been aware of those issues
from their inception," it reads.  "While the City of Vancouver has
issued work orders in relation to some of these issues, the City
of Vancouver has chosen not to meaningfully enforce the work
orders and chooses to ignore the majority of the health and safety
issues.

The applicant named is Jerald Jack Gates, a tenant who has lived
on the second floor of the Regent since September 2014.  He is
represented by Jason Gratl, a lawyer who over the years has been
involved in several high-profile cases related to social-justice
issues playing out in the Downtown Eastside.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Corban" Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta 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 an appeal in the case,
Corban v. Sarepta, et al., remains pending.

The Company said, " On January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014,
purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and
certain of its current or former officers. The complaints were
consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No.
14-cv-10201) ("Corban") by order of the court on June 23, 2014,
and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a consolidated
amended complaint. The plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint,
filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims on behalf of
themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired
securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and November 11,
2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and
certain of its current or former officers violated the federal
securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
eteplirsen and sought damages in an unspecified amount."

"On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  On August 12, 2015, the Court
denied the plaintiffs' April 30, 2015 motion for leave seeking to
file a further amended complaint, and on September 22, 2015, the
Court dismissed the case.

"The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015.  On January 27, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's order
denying leave to amend and dismissing the case, during the
pendency of which the plaintiffs' appeal was stayed.

"On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion.  A briefing
schedule for the plaintiffs' appeal will be set by the First
Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made at this time."


SONY CORP: Settlement with PlayStation 3 Buyers Has Tentative OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. on September 8 tentatively
approved an unlimited settlement fund for early-model Sony
PlayStation 3 buyers whose ability to run the Linux operating
system was undone by a software update.

The class action litigation stems from claims that Sony lied about
the PS3 being able to run a separate Linux operating system in
addition to its built-in gaming operating system. While earlier
models had that functionality, the "Other OS" feature was wiped
out by a software update on April 1, 2010, according to the
lawsuits.

In a Sept. 8 ruling, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
tentatively certified two classes of purchasers that bought "fat"
-- as opposed to later-model slim version -- PS3 systems between
Nov. 1, 2006, and April 1, 2010.

Class attorney James Pizzirusso said Sony agreed to an uncapped
settlement fund, which places no limit on how many PS3 buyers can
submit claims for recovery.

"Conceivably if every class member submitted a claim, Sony could
pay out tens of millions of dollars," Pizzirusso said. "The fund
is uncapped, and there's no way to know ultimately today how many
people will submit claims."

Pizzirusso is with Hausfield LLP in Washington.

Ten million PS3 units have been sold in the United States, ranging
in price from $400 to $600, according to court filings. Sony
introduced the PlayStation 4 in 2013.

The consolidated class action stretches back to April 2010 when
multiple lawsuits were filed claiming Sony lied about the PS3's
"Other OS" functionality.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the PS3
class action with prejudice, but the Ninth Circuit partly reversed
the dismissal in April 2014.

A settlement deal was reached last June after six years of
litigation and nearly 10 months of negotiations, according to a
motion for settlement approval filed on June 17.

The deal sets a $2.25 million cap for attorneys' fees and provides
$3,500 incentive awards for five named plaintiffs, including lead
plaintiff Anthony Ventura.

Under terms of the deal, Sony will pay $55 to each class member
that used a separate operating system on the PS3 before the
feature was eliminated and $9 to each class member who bought a
PS3 during the four-year class period but did not use the "Other
OS" feature.

Class members must file claims within 45 days of the notice date
in order to recover funds, according to the tentative approval
order.

Sony will use its PlayStation network database to email class
members about the settlement. Advertisements about the deal will
be posted on technology and gaming websites such as CNET and
IGN.com.

The notification plan should reach an estimated 77 percent of
class members, according to the settlement approval motion.

Potential class members must be notified within 45 days of the
Sept. 8 ruling, and class members will have 45 days following the
initial notice to object to the settlement.

A motion for final approval of the settlement is due on Dec. 20,
and a final approval hearing is set for Jan 24, 2017, in Oakland.

Sony's attorney, Luanne Sacks of Sacks Rickets & Case in San
Francisco, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment
on September 9, afternoon.

The case is captioned, In re SONY PS3 "OTHER OS" LITIGATION, Case
No.  4:10-CV-01811-YGR (N.D. Cal.)


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: $7MM Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum 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 court in Nevada
has entered an order granting final approval of the $7 million
settlement in the stockholder litigation, John Perry v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United
States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-
00433-LDG-CWH).

The Company said, "This putative consolidated class action raises
substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L.
Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is
August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
all defendants and control person liability, as a violation of
Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the
individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from our March
12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it anticipated
a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege
that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, our stock
price declined."

"The complaints further allege that during the putative class
period certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements
about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of our
stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages,
costs and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that
the Court deems appropriate.

"On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

"On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint. On March 26, 2015, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015, the Court ordered
a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between
the parties.

"On October 27, 2015, we reached a $7 million settlement in
principle with the lead plaintiff (which involved our insurance
carrier, as the reimbursing party in full). On June 13, 2016, the
Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement."


ST CLOUD STATE: Sept. 21 Pretrial Conference Set in Title IX Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Unze, writing for SC Times, reports that St. Cloud State
University will reinstate temporarily its women's Nordic ski team
as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by women's tennis players who
alleged Title IX violations.

U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim previously granted a
preliminary injunction that put on hold the university's plan to
eliminate the women's tennis program.  The university didn't
oppose a request in federal court that added the ski team to that
injunction while the tennis players' lawsuit is pending.

The ski team members approached the attorneys representing the
tennis players, and it's possible that they could be added as
plaintiffs to the tennis team's lawsuit or file a separate
lawsuit.  The tennis team's lawsuit was filed as a class action,
meaning that other female athletes could join the lawsuit against
the university.

That requires the plaintiffs to bring a formal motion for class
certification so other female athletes can join the lawsuit.  The
plaintiffs intend to do that, and the judge then has to decide the
scope of the potential class members.

Five tennis players sued the university and the Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities system, now called Minnesota State,
alleging Title IX violations and saying that the university for
years has offered more athletic opportunities for men than for
women.  The suit was filed two months after the university
announced that it was cutting six of its athletics programs --
from 23 to 17 -- effective at the end of last academic year.

The budget-cutting move also saw reductions in rosters for seven
sports, while rosters of six sports would increase.

The attorney representing the tennis players, Donald Chance Mark
Jr., said there have been no settlement discussions. He also said
that no other athletes from other eliminated teams have approached
him about joining the lawsuit.

Mr. Mark is seeking to make the temporary injunction permanent.
The case is scheduled for a pretrial conference Sept. 21.

The lawsuit accuses the university of having at least 116 more
athletic opportunities for men than for women during each of the
last 12 years, based on data that St. Cloud State reported to the
U.S. Department of Education.  It says that St. Cloud State had
124 more athletic opportunities for men than for women last
academic year, even though undergraduate enrollment was almost
identical for men and women.

The gap between male and female athletic opportunities has swelled
to as high as 179 during the last 12 years, the lawsuit alleges.
It accuses St. Cloud State during that period of effectively
denying 1,759 women athletic opportunities because of their
gender.

St. Cloud State has said that the athletic department
reorganization, along with "roster management," will bring it into
Title IX compliance.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: Blames Muddy Waters for Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that heart-device maker St. Jude Medical claims a financial firm
intentionally and "despicably" spread false information about the
cyber security of its pacemakers to profit when its share price
plummeted on patients' fears.

In a federal lawsuit filed on September 7, in Minnesota, St. Jude
Medical accuses Muddy Waters Capital of intentionally spreading
false information concerning St. Judge's implantable cardiac
devices to manipulate St. Jude's share price for its own financial
gain.

Not to be confused with the children's research hospital of the
same name, St. Jude Medical makes cardiovascular devices for
various heart diseases and neurostimulator devices for the
management of chronic pain and movement disorders. It reported net
sales of $1.45 billion for the first quarter of 2016, court
records show.

On Aug. 25 of this year, short-sale firm Muddy Waters Capital
released a 33-page report claiming that hundreds of thousands of
St. Jude's home-monitored cardiac devices have "severe security
vulnerabilities."

St. Jude says researchers at defendant MedSec Holdings, a
cybersecurity firm, purportedly found a security flaw in St.
Jude's heart implants which connect wirelessly to at-home
monitoring systems. Theoretically, this supposed flaw could leave
patients with a St. Jude pacemaker or defibrillator vulnerable to
a hacker's cyberattack.

But instead of bringing its findings to St. Jude or the Food and
Drug Administration, MedSec took its findings "directly to Muddy
Waters for the purpose of monetizing their claimed work with a
hoped-for payday in the stock market," the Twin Cities-based St.
Jude says.

"Defendants' wrongful conduct conclusively demonstrates a total
disregard for the patients whose lives depend on cardiac rhythm
management devices and their conduct is indefensible," St. Jude's
complaint states.

Muddy Waters allegedly shorted St. Jude's stock price the same day
-- meaning that it stood to profit if St. Jude's stock price fell
-- while it publicized MedSec's findings.

Muddy Waters research director Carson Block appeared on Bloomberg
TV and told viewers that St. Jude's devices' "communication
protocol has been compromised," making them "low hanging fruit for
attackers to exploit," according to the lawsuit. He said that a
cyberattack could potentially drain the devices' battery and
endanger patients' lives.

By way of its remote transmitters, Block allegedly said St. Jude
"literally distributed" the "keys to the castle," meaning access
to patients' device controls, and said that the information was
"readily available on Ebay" to anyone interested in making such an
attack.

St. Jude's share price fell approximately 5 percent on this wave
of negative publicity, from $81.88 per share to $77.82 per share
on Aug. 25. It has since regained some of this lost value, with
stocks trading at $79.35 on September 8.

"Defendants specifically intended to drive down the price of St.
Jude's stock, which they had previously sold short," St. Jude
says. "This insidious scheme to try to frighten and confuse
patients and doctors by publicly disseminating false and
unsubstantiated information in order to gain a financial windfall
and thereby cause investors to panic and drive the St. Jude stock
price down must be stopped and defendants must be held accountable
so that such activity will not be incentivized and repeated in the
future."

St. Jude categorically denies MedSec's findings publicized in
Muddy Water's report and the FDA supported the company's position,
recommending that patients not unplug their remote monitoring
based on security concerns.

Muddy Waters posted a video purporting to show a St. Jude device
"crash" under a cyber attack, but University of Michigan
researchers debunked it 24 hours later, according to the
complaint.

St. Jude claims Muddy Waters and MedSec were only concerned with
making themselves richer, which is why they used "market-bombshell
scare tactics" rather than taking their concerns to legitimate
parties, "with the very unfortunate (and despicable) concomitant
result of fueling significant concern and fear in patients and
their families."

Indeed, the St. Jude was immediately hit with a patient class
action a day after Muddy Water's report made the news.

Muddy Waters defended itself an emailed statement.

"It is not unusual for a company like this to try to silence its
critics and we are always prepared to vigorously defend our right
to criticize a company that puts its profits before its patients,"
spokesman Zach Kouwe said.

In addition to Muddy Waters Capital, the lawsuit also names as
defendants Muddy Waters Consulting LLC, MedSec Holdings Ltd.,
MedSec LLC and three individuals who are principals in these
firms, including Block and University of Chicago physician Dr.
Hemal Nayak, who is on MedSec's board.

St. Jude seeks the disgorgement of Muddy Water's short-sale
profits and punitive damages for defamation, violation of the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and conspiracy.

It is represented by Michael Ciresi with Ciresi Conlin in
Minneapolis and Daniel Ring -- james.rix@mayerbrownjsm.com -- with
Mayer Brown in Chicago.

Mr. Ciresi may be reached at:

     Michael Ciresi, Esq.
     Ciresi Conlin LLP
     225 South 6th St #4600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402


STANDARD INNOVATIONS: Faces Privacy Suit in Chicago
---------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that maybe some things should stay low-tech. Hauling her
smartphone-paired vibrator to Chicago, federal court, an Illinois
woman says the makers of We-Vibe are keeping tabs on users' most
intimate data.

On shelves from Ottawa-based Standard Innovation since 2014,
We-Vibes can be connected to users' smartphones with help from the
We-Connect app.

"Touch the screen to control the vibrations and build intensity,"
the vibrator's instructions say.

"Tease and please with custom vibes you create.

"Turn on your lover when you connect and play together from
anywhere in the world.

"Build excitement with secure in-app voice, chat and video."

Going only by her initials in the 18-page class action, N.P. says
she bought herself a $130 We-Vibe from an Illinois retailer this
past May.

She used it several times then but never realized "that We-Connect
monitors and records, in real time, how they use the device,"
according to the Sept. 2 complaint.

Standard Innovation likewise failed to mention, the complaint
continues, "that it transmits the collected private usage
information to its servers in Canada."

N.P. says customers' most "intimate details" are at stake,
"including the date and time of each use, the vibration intensity
level selected by the user, the vibration mode or pattern selected
by the user, and incredibly, the email address of We-Vibe
customers."

As seen in screenshots from the complaint, vibration settings
include standards sensations like pulse and wave, and some more
exotic, like echo, peak and "cha cha cha."

Such data "is undoubtedly valuable to the company," N.P.
continues, but she says Standard Innovation's "conduct
demonstrates a wholesale disregard for consumer privacy rights and
violated numerous state and federal laws."

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, the five-count complaint asserts violations of the
Federal Wiretap Act and Illinois Eavesdropping Statute; intrusion
upon seclusion; unjust enrichment; and consumer fraud.

The class seeks an injunction and punitive damages. It is
represented by Benjamin Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- with
Edelson PC in Chicago.

Standard Innovation has not returned a request for comment.


STATE FARM: Two Suits Over Labor Costs Certified as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn LaRowe, writing for Texarkana Gazette, reports that a federal
judge in Texarkana has granted class action certification in two
lawsuits accusing major insurance companies of unlawfully
depreciating labor costs in claims for property damage in
Arkansas.

The suits accuse State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and American
Modern Home Insurance Co. of improperly depreciating the value of
labor costs when paying claims for damage to homes, fences and
other insured real property in multiple years.  Both cases were
filed in Miller County Circuit Court in 2014 and later moved to
the Texarkana Division of the Western District of Arkansas federal
court at the request of the defendants.  Texarkana lawyer John
Goodson of Keil & Goodson declined to comment on behalf of the
plaintiffs.

The suits allege the insurance companies violated Arkansas law
when they used software that depreciated not only the cost of the
materials, but labor, as well.  The complaints in both cases argue
that labor "is not susceptible to aging or wear.  Its value does
not diminish over time.  Consequently, and practically,
depreciation simply cannot be applied to labor costs."

U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey issued orders on Aug. 28
certifying the cases as class actions.  Any Arkansan who settled a
property damage claim with State Farm or American Modern in the 10
years before the suits were filed in 2014 may be eligible to join
the suit.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs hope to recover the amount
they allege policyholders should have been paid for labor costs
minus the amount they were actually paid, plus a 12 percent
penalty, as permitted by Arkansas law.

Lawyers for the defendants have argued that the individual claims
of would-be class members are so different that class
certification isn't appropriate.  Judge Hickey's orders address
those arguments and reject them.

In both cases, Judge Hickey has appointed the following law firms
as class counsel: Keil & Goodson of Texarkana; Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check of California and Pennsylvania; Mattingly &
Roselius of Oklahoma; Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner &
Castleberry of Batesville, Ark.; Taylor Law Partners of
Fayetteville, Ark.; Stephen Engstrom Law Office of Little Rock;
Crowley Norman of Houston; and James Pratt Jr. of Camden, Ark.


STERICYCLE INC: Class Cert. Bid in W.D. Pa. Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 requesting
that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain
of the Company's small quantity customers who received rate
increases remains pending.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or
"whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex
rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390
which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously
disclosed.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and
state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted
claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York.

"On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On December
10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the
allegations therein.

"Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint on March 8, 2016, and we filed an answer to that
pleading on March 25, 2016, generally denying the allegations
therein and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses.

"In addition, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a Motion for Class
Certification in the MDL Action on January 29, 2016.  The Motion
requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting
of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate
increases.

"We intend to strongly contest the Motion and will be filing a
response to that motion in the coming weeks.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against
each of these lawsuits."


STERICYCLE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit in Illinois have filed an amended complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive.

The Company said, "On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to
sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly
traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016,
inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public
offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest
in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or
around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the
Company, our directors and certain of our current and former
officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering."

"The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive
price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of
its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those
alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued
during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and
ending April 28, 2016.

"On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit."


STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Amended "Kader" Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 plaintiffs' opposed
motion for leave to further amend the complaint in the "Kader"
class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "A purported class action complaint was filed on
December 3, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318) ("Kader"),
asserting that the Company and certain of its current or former
officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs' amended
complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleged that the defendants
made material misrepresentations or omissions during the putative
class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding
the sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an NDA for
eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based
on that data. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and
fees."

"On April 5, 2016, the Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to further amend the complaint, which Sarepta
opposed on April 22, 2016.  That motion remains pending. An
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time."


TH HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gonzales, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that
a nurse has filed a class-action lawsuit against a hospital over
allegations of unpaid overtime.

Dovie Williams filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on July 22 in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas against TH Healthcare LTD, doing business as
Park Plaza Hospital, alleging that the emergency care provider
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid one-and-one-half
times her regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek.  The plaintiff holds TH Healthcare LTD responsible
because the defendant allegedly denied her full compensation for
her hours worked over 40 and failed to take into account all
remunerations when calculating the regular hourly and overtime
rates.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award for all
unpaid wages, an equal amount as liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, costs and expenses and such other relief to which she may be
entitled.  She is represented by Todd Slobin -- tslobin@eeoc.net -
- and Ricardo J. Prieto -- rprieto@eeoc.net -- of Shellist |
Lazarz | Slobin LLP in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-02198


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: "Frisco" Suit Remains Pending in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is defending the case, Dennis Frisco v. Organics
Management, LLC d/b/a Reserveage, Reserve Life Organics, LLC d/b/a
Reserveage, Wal-Staf Services, Inc., and Wal-Staf Temporary
Services, Inc., Case No: 01-2014-CA-000308 Div. J, in the Circuit
Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Alachua County,
Florida.

The plaintiff in this matter was hired by a subsidiary of the
Company, Organics Management, LLC, on a temporary basis through a
third-party temporary staffing service to assist the Company with
the hiring of sales people during a limited period of particularly
high sales growth. As that period of unusual growth waned and
services for hiring sales people were no longer necessary for the
needs of the business, Organics Management ended plaintiff's
temporary staffing engagement. Plaintiff alleges that Organics
Management (or one of its affiliates) in fact intended to hire him
on a full-time basis and that their failure to do so was based on
age and gender discrimination. The Company believes that
plaintiff's claims are without merit and is defending this case
vigorously.


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Provides Indemnity to "Mathews" Defendant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is providing indemnity to the defendant in the case, Amy
Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas LLC,
Case No. CV-2015-0294, in the Circuit Court of Independence
County, Arkansas, Civil Division.

This purported class action alleges a violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the same allegations of the
state attorney general that serve as the basis for the claims in
the Herbal Supplements multidistrict litigation referenced above,
and seeks certification of a class of Arkansas residents
purportedly impacted by the allegations. The Company is not a
party to this litigation but provides indemnity and defense with
respect to certain of the claims in this litigation.


UBER: 9th Cir. Sends Background Check Claims Into Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals
court on Sept. 7 handed Uber Technologies Inc. a major victory,
ruling that drivers suing the company may be bound by arbitration
agreements.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an
arbitrator, not a federal judge, must decide whether the
agreements used by Uber in 2013 and 2014 are enforceable.

The decision reverses a 2015 ruling that voided the company's
arbitration agreements and allowed a driver class action to
proceed against the company in court over claims that it violated
background check laws.

"The district court should have ordered the parties to arbitrate
their dispute over arbitrability . . . and we remand with
instructions that it do so," Circuit Judge Richard Clifton wrote
for the panel.

Judge Clifton went on to offer strong signals that the court
believes the agreements are valid, ruling that they were not
"procedurally unconscionable," as the lower court had held.

The ruling in favor of the agreements is a coup for its legal team
at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and could finally stem the tide of
lawsuits that have dogged the company for the past several years.

"Arbitration is a fair, speedy and less costly alternative to
class-action litigation. We've always believed our optional
arbitration agreements should have applied in this case, and we're
pleased with the court's decision," Gibson Dunn's Theodore
Boutrous Jr. said in a statement.

It also gives Uber new leverage in renegotiating an $84 million
settlement with California and Massachusetts drivers. U.S.
District Court Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California rejected the proposed settlement in August.

In the background checks case, Judge Chen ruled that Uber's 2013
arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  The judge objected in
particular to Uber's procedures for opting out of arbitration,
which he found so burdensome as to be "illusory."  Drivers were
required either to opt out in person at Uber's office in San
Francisco or by overnight delivery service to its legal
department.

But the panel disagreed with that conclusion--noting that some
drivers did opt out.  "Thus, the promise was not illusory," Judge
Clifton wrote.  That the language providing for the opt-out was
buried in the driver agreement "does not change this analysis," he
added.

The panel, which was rounded out by Circuit Judges Richard Tallman
and Sandra Ikuta, also had stern words for Judge Chen's decision
to go against Ninth Circuit case law in invalidating the 2014
agreement.

Even though that agreement contained a less burdensome opt-out
clause than the previous version, Judge Chen still found the
agreement was procedurally unconscionable -- explicitly
contravening previous Ninth Circuit decisions, including one known
as Kilgore v. Key Bank.

"The district court does not have the authority to ignore circuit
court precedent, and neither do we," Judge Clifton wrote in the
decision.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the plaintiffs lawyer suing Uber in the
separate California and Massachusetts class actions, lamented the
decision.

"This decision is not good for the class," ms. Liss-Riordan said
in a prepared statement.  "The Ninth Circuit endorsed Uber's
attempt to use its arbitration agreement to avoid a systemic
challenge to its classification of drivers as employees through a
global class action."

The plaintiffs were represented in the background check case by
Laura Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian &
Ho.  She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Allergan Shareholder Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 intends to vigorously defend the Allergan Shareholder
Class Action.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of
Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan
shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square,
PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-cv-02004-DOC).

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and
Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company,
Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint
alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of
Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014,
against all defendants contending that various purchases of
Allergan securities by AGMS were made while in possession of
material, non-public information concerning a potential tender
offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations
of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the
SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended
complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A.
Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among
other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court
denied that motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend these
matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Salix Shareholder Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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
plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of the Salix Shareholder
Class Actions remains pending.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Salix Merger
Agreement with Salix, between February 25, 2015 and March 12,
2015, six purported stockholder class actions were filed
challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some
or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix Board"), the
Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub.

On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint. The operative complaint alleges
generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through
an allegedly inadequate sales process and for allegedly inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protections. The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained
inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other
things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to
the Salix Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other
things, money damages and unspecified attorneys' and other fees
and costs.

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of February
19, 2016.  In an oral ruling given on May 19, 2016, the Court
dismissed the consolidated action against all defendants.

On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Delaware Supreme Court appealing the decision to dismiss the
consolidated action against all defendants. The Plaintiffs'
opening appellate brief was filed on August 2, 2016. Defendants'
response appellate brief was due on September 1, 2016. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against this appeal.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Synergetics Case Settlement Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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
court has granted final approval of the settlement reached in the
Synergetics Shareholder Class Actions in Missouri.

On September 1, 2015, Valeant entered into a merger agreement,
whereby it would acquire all shares of Synergetics USA, Inc.
("Synergetics"). The merger was announced on September 2, 2015.
Following the announcement of the merger, four putative
stockholder class actions were filed challenging the merger. Three
of these actions were filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of
the State of Missouri and name as defendants all members of the
Synergetics Board of Directors, Synergetics, Valeant and Blue
Subsidiary Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant). Those
actions are captioned as follows: Murphy, et al. v. Synergetics
USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00778 (filed September 15, 2015
and amended September 23, 2015 (the "Murphy Action")); Glorioso,
et al., v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00803
(filed September 23, 2015 (the "Glorioso Action")); and
Scarantino, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-
CC00810 (filed September 28, 2015 (the "Scarantino Action"))
(collectively, the "Missouri Actions"). The fourth action,
captioned Nilsen, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., C.A. No. 11552-VCL (the "Delaware Action," and together
with the Missouri Actions, the "Actions") was filed on September
28, 2015, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and named as
defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors,
Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp.

The Actions generally allege that the members of the Synergetics
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Synergetics
stockholders by, among other things, conducting a flawed process
in considering the transaction, agreeing to an inadequate offer
price, providing incomplete and misleading information to
Synergetics stockholders, and accepting unreasonable deal
protection measures in the merger agreement that allegedly
dissuaded other potential bidders from making competing offers.
The Actions also allege that Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp.
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Missouri Actions sought, among other things, an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or awarding
damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and
expenses. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, an order
awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and
expenses.

On October 2, 2015, Synergetics, each member of the Synergetics
Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs
in the Actions, which sets forth the parties' agreement in
principle for a settlement of the Actions on the basis of the
additional disclosures made in a supplement to the Schedule 14D-9
filed with the SEC on October 2, 2015, in exchange for the release
of, among other things, certain claims relating to the Actions,
the merger and disclosures made in connection therewith.

On October 8, 2015 the Delaware Court of Chancery unilaterally
dismissed the Delaware Action. In October 2015, the Missouri
Actions were consolidated into the Murphy Action. In January 2016,
the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery, including
additional documents produced by Defendants and conducting two
depositions.

Thereafter, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a
stipulation of settlement and ancillary settlement documents,
which were filed with the Court on April 25, 2016. A hearing with
the Court was held on April 29, 2016. At that hearing, the Court
signed the scheduling order, which governs settlement proceedings,
and set a final settlement hearing for July 29, 2016.

On May 26, 2016, notice of the proposed settlement was mailed to
Synergetics record holders that are members of the class.  The
parties have reached an agreement in principle respecting payment
by the Company of a nominal amount in respect of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

The Court held the final settlement hearing on July 29, 2016, at
which it granted final approval of the settlement and awarded the
negotiated attorneys' fees.  Pursuant to the settlement, the Court
dismissed the Missouri Actions with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs and all members of the settlement class.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a securities class action lawsuit against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 13, 2016:

     -- Deborah Jorn,

     -- Howard B. Schiller,

     -- Ronald H. Farmer, Colleen Goggins, Robert Ingram, Ari S.
Kellen, Anders Lonner, Theo Melas-Kyriazi, J Michael Pearson,
Robert N. Power, Norma Provencio, Robert L Rosiello, Katherine B
Stevenson, Jeffrey W. Ubben, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.,

     -- Tanya Carro,

     -- PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, and

     -- Barclays Capital Inc., Bmo Capital Markets Corp., Cibc
World Markets Corp., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Dbs Bank
Ltd., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., DNB Markets, Inc., Goldman
Sachs & Co, Hsbc Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ
Securities (USA), Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Suntrust
Robinson Humphrey, Inc., TD Securities (USA) LLC.

Responses to the motions to dismiss are due Nov. 14, 2016.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 from
October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors.  Those four actions, captioned
Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case
No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-
cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various
time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The
allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information
about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to
drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,
and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.

On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint naming additional defendants and asserting additional
claims based on allegations of false and misleading statements
and/or omissions similar to those in the initial complaints.
Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company,
and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company, certain current or former officers and
directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to
bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's equity securities and senior notes in the
United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016,
including all those who purchased the Company's securities in the
United States in the Company's debt and stock offerings between
July 2013 to March 2015.

The Company's response to the consolidated complaint was due
September 13, 2016. The Company believes the actions are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Stay Ontario Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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
motion seeking to stay the Kowalyshyn action is scheduled to be
heard on September 15, 2016.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v.
Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et
al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-
00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d)
O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and
Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current
or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-
Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior
Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian
provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and
ending as late as November 16, 2015.

The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged
misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material
information about the Company's business and prospects, relating
to drug pricing, the Company's policies and accounting practices,
the Company's use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common
law claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim
additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims
under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including
the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci
action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the
Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of
liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i)
Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of
British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v
Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed
November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined. The Company
has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not
intend to pursue the actions.

The Company expects that certain of these actions will be
consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave
and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in
any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage
motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the
class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the
O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action.

On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Catucci and O'Brien
actions filed a motion seeking to stay the Kowalyshyn action in
favor of the Catucci action on the basis of forum non conveniens
(namely on the basis that the Quebec Superior Court is the more
appropriate forum to hear this matter). That motion is scheduled
to be heard on September 15, 2016.

In the Catucci action, a schedule has been set for the week of
April 24, 2017 for the hearing of motions for leave under the
Quebec Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding.

In the Kowalyshyn action, a schedule has been set for the hearing
of the motions for leave under the Ontario Securities Act and
certification as a class proceeding commencing April 12, 2017.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses to each of the
actions, and in each case intends to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: RICO Class Actions Pending in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 is defending against RICO Class Actions in New Jersey.

On May 27, 2016 and June 24, 2016, two virtually identical actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and  Philidor, alleging claims under
the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third party
payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Valeant
branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015
(Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare
Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, and Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare
Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al., No.
3:16-cv-3885).   The complaints allege, among other things, that
the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the
identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.  The complaints
further allege that these acts constitute a pattern of
racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO
statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified
damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.  The Company
believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 remains a defendant in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class
Actions.

Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed against Medicis, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. ("VPII") and various manufacturers of generic
forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for
minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription
drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand
name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and
of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and
further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched
through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory
and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple,
punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees.

By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation (''JPML'') centralized the suits in the
District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-
md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.

After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor
Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to
dismiss those complaints. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought
under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various state laws but denied the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman
Act, Section 1 and other state laws. VPII was dismissed from the
case, but the litigation continues against Medicis and the generic
manufacturers as to the remaining claims. The actions are
currently in discovery.

On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to
dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional
non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain
retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs")
making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that
sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been
centralized with the class action suits in the District of
Massachusetts.

Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to
dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints
on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015. A
third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy
against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March
28, 2016.

On July 20, 2016, each group of Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to file a proposed amended complaint. The proposed amended
complaints seek to reassert alleged sham litigation claims against
Medicis; the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor
Plaintiffs also seek to amend their respective purported class
definitions.

The Company is evaluating these motions and intends to vigorously
defend all of these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Contact Lens Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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
Contact Lens Antitrust Class Actions are in discovery.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies.
The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and of various state antitrust
and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.

By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the
Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable
Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK,
before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class
Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action complaint
on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss
those complaints.

On June 16, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws.
The actions are currently in discovery. The Company intends to
vigorously defend all of these actions


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Certify Afexa Class Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 a
hearing to certify the class in the Afexa Class Action was held on
April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The
proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period
and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On
December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action.

In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its
claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's
amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed
certain amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify
the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending.

The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously
defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Racketeering Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Marowits, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Valeant Pharmaceuticals is being sued by New York health benefit
funds providers that allege the embattled Canadian drug
manufacturer overcharged for medications in contravention of
racketeering and consumer-protection legislation.

New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City
and the Detectives' Endowment Association of New York filed a
class-action lawsuit on Aug. 29 against Valeant and former
Philidor Rx Services founders Andrew and Matthew Davenport, along
with several affiliated companies.

The health benefit funds providers, which reimburse employees and
retirees for prescription drugs, allege they "unnecessarily paid
for or incurred excessive costs" for Valeant medications.

Valeant faces three counts, including alleged violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the New
York Deceptive Practices Act.  All defendants have been accused of
conspiring to violate RICO through activities such as mail fraud,
wire fraud and use of interstate facilities in aid of
racketeering.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages
over US$5 million on behalf of themselves and other similar third-
party payers between Jan. 2, 2013 and Oct. 30, 2015.

"Valeant is aware of these recent claims, and as previously
indicated intends to defend itself against such claims," the
company said.

"Valeant cannot comment further on ongoing litigation."
The lawsuit against the Quebec-based drugmaker and others was
filed 10 days after U.S. mutual fund T. Rowe Price, a former large
Valeant shareholder and Alleghany Corp. filed a fraud suit over
actions it claims cost investors billions of dollars.
Valeant has said that claim is similar to one filed in October by
a teachers' retirement fund.

In the Aug. 29 57-page filing, the plaintiffs allege Valeant
charged exorbitant prices for Valeant-branded drugs, routed
prescriptions through Philidor, resubmitted rejected claims
through other pharmacies to make it seem they hadn't been
previously rejected, substituted Valeant-branded drugs for generic
equivalents, and offered incentives to discourage patients from
complaining.

None of the allegations has been proven.

Valeant is also reportedly under a criminal fraud investigation by
the U.S. Attorney's office in New York over its activities with
mail-order pharmacy Philidor.

It faces other investigations in several states along with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is looking at
whether Salix -- acquired by Valeant last year -- allegedly misled
investors about inventory levels.


VANCOUVER ENGLISH: Students Mull Class Action Over Sudden Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Meuse, writing for CBC News, reports that the sudden closure
of a Vancouver language school has left 600 students out of class,
and almost 100 school staff out of a job.

Teachers at Vancouver English Centre (VEC), an English as a second
language (ESL) school in downtown Vancouver, have been on strike
for the last four weeks, seeking their first collective contract.

Union representatives say they showed up to the school at 9:00
a.m. on Aug. 26 for a private mediation session, but instead found
a group of confused students and staff gathered outside.  A note
had been posted saying the school was closed, and was unlikely to
reopen.

Hector Diaz, a VEC student visiting from Mexico, says the school
has yet to refund his money despite repeated requests throughout
the strike.  Now that the school is closed, he has no idea what to
do.

"I came here to study but now I don't have any money to take
another course, because they have my money," Mr. Diaz said.

"I travelled miles away from my country, and this is a bad
situation that I am [in]."

Before the strike, the school had about 600 students enrolled --
all of whom have been left with no explanation for the sudden
closure, no contact information, and no refund.

Ken Gardner, president and owner of VEC, was contacted by the CBC
for comment, but did not respond by deadline.  A copy of the
closure notice was posted on the school's Twitter page.

Teachers were prepared to compromise

Kim Fissel is the interim president of ETEA Local 9, the union
representing VEC's teachers.  She said after four weeks of job
action, the union had come prepared on Aug. 26 to make some
concessions.

"We had decided, in order to try and allow the school to stay
open, allow these students to get what they paid for and allow
more than 45 teachers to keep their jobs, we would counter [our
own initial offer]," Ms. Fissel said.

"I've got teachers asking me what happens next, because they've
got years invested in the school," she said.  "In one case we have
one teacher who's been there 18 years."

"This didn't have to happen."

The strike came after 15 months of failed contract negotiations
and mediation.  Teachers had been asking for wages comparable to
other schools the union represents, as well as pay for time spent
preparing for class.

Lack of accreditation leaves students with few options

VEC was a founding member of Languages Canada, a non-profit
organization that oversees ESL schools across the country.  But
Languages Canada says VEC lost its membership several months ago
after it stopped paying dues.

VEC never became a member of the Private Career Training
Institutions Agency (PCTIA), a provincial government regulatory
body founded in 2004 to set education standards for ESL schools.

Since VEC is not under the jurisdiction of either Languages Canada
or PCTIA, Ms. Fissel says students can't appeal to those bodies
for help to get their money back.

"The students unfortunately will have to go after [VEC] legally,
and as I understand, individually," she said.  "They might be able
to get a class action together, but they don't really have a lot
of options."

ESL schools do not fall under the definition of "career training"
provided by the provincial Private Career Training Institutions
Act, so registration with PCTIA is not required to operate an ESL
school in B.C.

"This particular result really shows why [accreditation by] PCTIA
should not be voluntary," Ms. Fissel said.  "This is going to do
all kinds of damage to the reputation of people involved in this."

None of this is particularly comforting for Mr. Diaz.  Like many
VEC students, he's in a foreign country on a short-term visa.
He's only here until December, he's not familiar with the local
legal system, and he says the Mexican consulate has so far been
unable to help.

He's also down more than $5,000 in tuition fees paid to VEC.

"I don't have any money to spend on any lawyer," Mr. Diaz said.

"I don't know what to do.  I don't know if I can apply for any
legal service.  I'm totally lost."


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Securities Litigation Remains Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, 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 remains a defendant in a federal securities class action
in New York.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and
certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court").

On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original
plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on
June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas Teachers Retirement
System lead plaintiff.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally
filed complaint, which was purportedly filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2013
and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and concealed material
adverse facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-
Squared Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages.

A motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf
of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015. On
July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in
part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing
Plaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit.

The remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was
filed on August 5, 2016. The Company believes that the suit is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company
believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and
reasonably estimable related to this claim.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument Set for Oct. 7 in Appeal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, 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 defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory
appeal in the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners,
Inc. et al, is scheduled for October 7, 2016.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (the "District Court") by an individual who
alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual
funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the
AlphaSector Funds. The complaint alleges claims against the
Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and
certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds
between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the
original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff
and on July 27, 2015, the District Court appointed movants as lead
plaintiff. On October 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint which, among other things, added a
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus
Opportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, the District Court
entered an order transferring the action to the Southern District
of New York (the "Court").

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. A
motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company and
affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court
dismissed four causes of action entirely and a fifth cause of
action with respect to a portion of the Class Period. The Court
also dismissed all claims against ten defendants named in the
Complaint. The Court held that Plaintiff's may pursue certain
securities claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Answer to the Second Amended Complaint was filed on August 5,
2016. The defendants intend to file a motion to certify an
interlocutory appeal of the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit on or before August 26, 2016. Oral
argument on the motion is scheduled for October 7, 2016.

The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there
is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable
related to this claim.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Engineer Pleads Guilty in Emissions Cheating Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Schneider, Tom Krisher, Eric Tucker and Michael Biesecker,
writing for The Associated Press, report that a Volkswagen
engineer has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in the
company's emissions cheating scandal, advancing a criminal
investigation by agreeing to testify against others.

James Robert Liang, 62, of Newbury Park, California, entered the
plea on Sept. 9 in U.S. District Court in Detroit to one count of
conspiracy to defraud the government through wire fraud.

Mr. Liang is the first person to enter a plea in the case, and his
cooperation is a major breakthrough in the Justice Department's
probe into the scandal.  Government documents say others were
involved and point to multiple emails in German that likely came
from VW employees in Wolfsburg, Germany.

Volkswagen has admitted to installing software on about 500,000 2-
liter diesel engines in VW and Audi models in the U.S. that turned
pollution controls on during government tests and turned them off
while on the road.  The Environmental Protection Agency found that
the cars emitted up to 40 times the legal limit for nitrogen
oxide, which can cause human respiratory problems.

Mr. Liang, who began work for VW in 1983 in Germany, and also
worked in the U.S., was indicted in June on one count of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and another count of violating the
Clean Air Act.  According to a plea agreement unsealed on Set. 9,
Mr. Liang admitted that he and others planned software known as a
defeat device, that could cheat U.S. emissions tests after
recognizing that a diesel engine they were designing could not
meet customer expectations and stricter emissions standards. Using
the defeat device enabled VW to obtain a certificate from the
Environmental Protection Agency needed to sell the cars in the
U.S.

Mr. Liang pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge before Judge
Sean Cox.  He will be sentenced on Jan. 11.  The judge said that
guidelines call for Liang to serve five years in prison. He also
could be fined up to $250,000.

Volkswagen wouldn't comment on the plea but said on Sept. 9 that
it continues to cooperate in the investigation.

Mr. Laing, who wore a dark suit and tie, mostly responded "yes" or
"no" to the judge's questions at the Sept. 9 hearing, but also
read a brief statement in which he admitted to the fraud.  He had
a German-speaking interpreter with him in court but did not use
her and gave all responses in English.  The judge noted that he is
not a U.S. citizen and could be subject to immigration action.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Chutkow told the judge that two or
more of Mr. Laing's colleagues also had knowledge of the
conspiracy.

According to the indictment, Mr. Liang and his co-conspirators
were tasked with designing new diesel engines for the U.S. market
that complied with stricter emissions standards for nitrogen oxide
emissions that went into effect in 2007. Within VW, it was
referred to as the US '07 project.

Prosecutors say Mr. Liang and the other engineers realized that
could not design a diesel vehicle that both met the stricter U.S.
emission standards and performed well enough to satisfy customers.
So they began work on defeat device software that would cheat on
the tests, the indictment says.

Within VW, the cheating software was referred to as "cycle
beating," or "emissions tight" mode, among other terms, according
to the indictment.

In one 2007 meeting with government officials in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, Mr. Liang participated as his co-conspirators
misrepresented that VW's diesel vehicles complied with U.S.
emissions standards, according to the plea agreement.

"Liang knew that VW was cheating by implementing the defeat device
and that he and his co-conspirators were considering deceiving EPA
in this meeting," the plea agreement states.

The indictment says that in May 2008 Mr. Liang transferred from
Volkswagen headquarters in Germany to the U.S. to help oversee the
launch of the new "clean diesel" models.  Investigators uncovered
internal company emails that show Mr. Liang and other VW engineers
exchanged ideas about how to "effectively calibrate the defeat
device" so that the cars would recognize when they were undergoing
U.S. emissions testing.  The software was designed to recognize
when the cars were being tested on a treadmill-like device called
a dynamometer.

In 2013, Mr. Liang and others exchanged messages in German about
software that recognized when the engine was revving but the
steering wheel was not moving, an indication that the car was
undergoing a dynamometer test.  The software then calibrated the
engine to run cleaner than it would in real world driving,
according to the indictment.

"If this goes through without problems, the function is probably
truly watertight! ;-)" one of the VW employees messaged Mr. Liang
in German.

The scheme began to unravel in 2014 when a nonprofit group
discovered that the cars polluted too much in real-world driving
conditions.  But prosecutors say that Mr. Liang and his VW
colleagues still conspired to hide the existence of the defeat
devices.

As a first step, VW offered a new "optimized" software update that
was supposed to address the high emissions.

"We 'only just need a plausible explanation' as to why the
emissions are still high!!!" a VW employee wrote to Mr. Liang and
others in German after the software patch provided by VW failed to
fix the problem.

"We must be sure to prevent the authority from testing the Gen 1!"
a VW employee emailed in June 2015, referring to the first
generation of VW models using the "clean diesel" engines.  The
emails said that if Gen 1 is tested by the California Air
Resources Board "then we'll have nothing more to laugh about!!!!!"

As the VW engineers struggled to explain to U.S. regulators why
their cars kept failing the tests, a VW employee wrote Mr. Liang
and others in July 2015: "the key word 'creativity' would be
helpful here."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Nears Settlement Agreement with Vehicle Dealers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that in March,
six Volkswagen retailers came together with the mission of
negotiating an out-of-court settlement with the factory to
compensate their fellow dealers for losses from the diesel
emissions scandal, and averting what they feared would be messy
litigation against their business partner.

But when such a deal finally came together, it was disclosed by
someone else: Steve Berman, a class-action attorney representing a
VW dealer who had defied the six-member committee and sued VW in
April.

It's still unclear what roles the VW dealer committee and
Mr. Berman's firm played in the run-up to the dealer agreement.
For now, both parties appear pleased that a deal -- any deal -- is
at hand.

In a hearing, Mr. Berman said the deal would "heal the wounds
between the dealers and Volkswagen."

Mr. Berman, who was unavailable for comment, represents Ed
Napleton, an Illinois-based dealer who sued VW in April seeking
class-action status, alleging that the automaker had defrauded its
retailers by cheating on emissions tests.  The case was later
transferred to a federal court in San Francisco, where U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer is overseeing the complex web of
consumer and government litigation against VW.

To VW dealer Steve Kalafer, who has been critical of the six-
member Dealer Investment Committee's call to forgo litigation in
favor of voluntary settlement talks, Mr. Napleton ended up as the
"hero" of the day.

"If it wasn't for Napleton . . . this would have been another
manufacturer telling their dealers, "I'll make it up to you
someday,'" Mr. Kalafer said.

Jason Kuhn, the Florida VW dealer who led the Investment
Committee, said the full group met with VW executives twice in
person and held many more conference calls over the last three
months, totaling "hundreds" of hours of work on a settlement.

After months of discussions, Mr. Kuhn said, "we felt that the deal
contained enough important parts that dealers would be happy."

Alan Brown, chairman of VW's dealer council and another member of
the Investment Committee, praised the deal, saying the committee
acted as the "voice of the dealer" in the talks and aimed to
ensure that "we were made whole with damages" and that "VW took
the American market seriously."

Aaron Jacoby, a dealer lawyer and partner at Arent Fox in Los
Angeles who counts many VW dealers among his clients, says
Mr. Napleton's suit was likely key in bringing the deal about.

"Rather than looking to the dealer committee that was established
for the purpose to try to resolve this, it appears VW made a deal
with class-action counsel," he said, "which is typical to how
class-action claims are resolved but different than what dealers
were expecting."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: 40% of Vehicle Owners Seek Emissions Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that about 210,000 owners of
Volkswagens with 2-liter diesel engines that cheat on emissions
tests have registered to settle with the company under the terms
of a June court agreement.

The figure was revealed in a federal court motion by class action
attorneys seeking final approval of the settlement involving
475,000 owners.  It says only 235 have asked to stay out of the
settlement and pursue legal action on their own.  Another 110
objections to the settlement were filed.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer has given the $15 billion
settlement preliminary approval, with a final decision expected
Oct. 18.

Terms call for the German carmaker to spend up to $10 billion
buying back or repairing Volkswagen and Audi 2-liter vehicles and
paying owners another $5,100 to $10,000 each.

The motion was filed by Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead attorney in
the class-action settlement.  It says the number of owners who
signed up for settlements, about 44 percent, was "a noteworthy
level of participation in a program whose claims deadline does not
occur until September 2018."

The Federal Trade Commission, which sued Volkswagen along with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department, came
out in support of the settlement on Aug. 26.  The agency, which
had contended that VW deceived buyers through false advertising,
says the settlement is fair because it gives owners the value of
their cars before the scandal became public last Sept. 18.  Owners
also are compensated for other expenses, the agency says.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Proposed Settlements Boon for Some Dealers
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that Volkswagen
dealers are finally in line for some financial relief after
watching their volumes, profits and franchise values pummeled by
the automaker's diesel emissions scandal.

But will it be enough to cover what they've lost, and may still
stand to lose?

The answer will become clearer over the next several weeks, as
lawyers for dealers and VW finalize how to divvy up a compensation
fund -- worth more than $1.2 billion, according to Reuters --
among VW's roughly 650 U.S. retailers, following a preliminary
agreement.  The agreement also calls on VW to buy back used
diesels that have clogged dealership lots for more than 11 months.

Individual dealer payouts will be based in part on dealership and
market size, according to Hagens Berman, a law firm representing
dealers in the VW litigation in a U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, but the reported $1.2 billion package amounts to an
average of about $1.8 million per dealer.

Such a payout would be a boon for VW dealers struggling to turn a
profit amid a stop-sale on diesel models that accounted for 20
percent of sales -- and a large chunk of new-car profits -- before
the scandal erupted in September.

Jason Kuhn, a VW dealer in Florida and leader of the six-member
Dealer Investment Committee formed in March to pursue settlement
talks with the factory, cheered the deal, saying he was "very,
very confident that the dealer body as a whole will feel that this
proposal is very generous and that VW has fully compensated the
dealers."

Yet buy-sell advisers, and even some VW retailers, question
whether the fund will be enough to fully address the scandal's
impact.

Alan Haig, president of buy-sell advisory firm Haig Partners in
Fort Lauderdale, Fla., says an average payout of $1.8 million
would be enough to make up for lost profits or diminished
franchise value, but not both.

With many VW stores struggling before the scandal, Haig has
assigned VW dealerships a flat dollar value since last year,
rather than the traditional multiple of earnings.  By his method,
VW stores are worth between $0 and $1.5 million today, compared
with $250,000 to $2.5 million before the scandal.

The impact of lost business and profit comes on top of that
decline.  Haig says while diesels accounted for a fifth of VW's
sales, they made up a larger share of dealers' new-car profits.

As a result, he said, an average payout of $1.8 million, is "not
sufficient to pay for the loss in profits and the loss in
franchise value."

Buy-sell adviser Erin Kerrigan said the proposed dealer
settlements are a key step in moving past the scandal, but echoed
Haig's analysis.  She estimates VW dealers on average were making
an annual profit of about $600,000 before the scandal, meaning an
average $1.8 million payout represents three times normal
earnings.

"On an average basis it seems fair, but it very much depends on
how [the funds] are allocated and distributed, and that's just for
the earnings," said Ms. Kerrigan, managing director of Kerrigan
Advisors in Irvine, Calif.

"In terms of the value of the business, if someone was planning to
sell their dealership in the middle of this scandal, it's not
enough," she said.

Steve Kalafer, a VW dealer and owner of the 17-franchise
Flemington Car & Truck Country in Flemington, N.J., says more is
riding on the settlement than just a payout.

An underappreciated risk of the whole VW fiasco, Mr. Kalafer says,
is the potential exposure to civil and even criminal fraud
liability stemming from dealers who have borrowed money from
lenders to bankroll business plans underpinned by VW's
projections, which involved the sale of illegally modified diesel
vehicles.

"The likelihood is unknown, but the bottom line is that dealers
made warranties and representations based on projections [by VW]
that were fraudulently computed," Mr. Kalafer said, adding: "I'm
hopeful that this settlement from VW will put that potential
liability behind them."

The risk of such dealer liability is a "legitimate concern," says
Anthony Sabino, a federal class-action expert and law professor at
St. John's University in New York.  A criminal fraud case against
a dealer would be "an uphill battle for even the best prosecutor"
but civil fraud charges would be easier to pursue, he said.

Dealers could avoid such liability if the court-approved
settlement contained an injunction shielding dealers from claims,
he said.

Ultimately, Mr. Sabino says, the size of the compensation fund is
key.

"What really is going to make it work, unequivocally, is money,"
he said.  "People will be more accepting of a broad-based
settlement that provides injunctive relief if there's enough money
on the table."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Solicitor Taps Hausfeld to Help in Ireland Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Driscoll, writing for The Times, reports that a lawyer who
was instrumental in winning a record $15 billion US settlement in
the Volkswagen emissions scandal is now being hired by a Co Mayo
solicitor to support cases against the German carmaker in Ireland.

Michael Hausfeld, an American class-action lawyer, was a major
figure in the case against Volkswagen, which was settled earlier
this year.  He is now sharing all publicly-available American
documents that Volkswagen has disclosed with an Irish solicitor
working on cases here.


WSFS FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
WSFS Financial 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 a court has approved a
stipulation of settlement of the lawsuits relating to the October
2015 merger with Alliance Bancorp, Inc.

Four purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints
relating to the October 2015 merger with Alliance were filed
during the quarter ended June 30, 2015. These actions were
consolidated under the caption In re: Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of
Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action Litigation, Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Consol. Action Lead
Case No. 2015-3606 (Civil Div.) (the Alliance Action). The
complaint named as defendants Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of
Pennsylvania, its directors and certain of its officers, and the
Company (the Defendants.

On July 7, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation of settlement of
this matter which included the payment of $335,000 in legal fees
for counsel to the Plaintiffs. These legal fees are to be paid by
the Company's insurers and will not have a material impact on the
Company's consolidated statement of operations or statement of
condition.


XBIOTECH INC: Filed Demurrer in California Action
-------------------------------------------------
Xbiotech Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
responded with a demurrer in a class action lawsuit in California.

The Company said, "On December 1, 2015, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc.,
John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed
against us, certain of our officers and directors and the
underwriter for our initial public offering in the Superior Court
for the State of California, Los Angeles County. On December 2,
2015, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Linh
Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and Queena Han was filed
against us and certain of our officers and directors in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuits are
based on substantially similar factual allegations and purport to
be class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from April 15, 2015 through November
23, 2015. The complaint filed in California state court alleges
that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the complaint filed in federal
court alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), in each case by
making materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's Phase III clinical trial conducted in Europe to assess
Xilonix(TM) as a treatment for colorectal cancer. The California
complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and the federal complaint
purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Both complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief."

"In February 24, 2016, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the federal case, the court issued an order
appointing Mr. Kresimir Corak as lead plaintiff.  The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in the federal case on April 8, 2016.
We filed a motion to dismiss brief with the court on May 23, 2016,
while plaintiffs filed a response brief on July 7, 2016.  In the
California case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
June 7, 2016. We responded with a demurrer in August 2016. No
trial or other dates have been set in either case."


YIRENDAI LTD: "Seong" Sues Over Drop in Yirendai Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seong Roh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Yirendai Ltd., Yihan Fang and Yu Cong,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06506 (C.D. Cal., August 30, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable counsel fees and expert
fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Yirendai Ltd. is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Beijing, China. It is a peer-to-peer
lending company headquartered in China that purportedly connects
investors and individual borrowers. Yirendai's American Depositary
Shares (ADS) are actively traded on the NYSE.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the increasing amount of fraud related to customer
applications for its loan products and the implementation of new
anti-fraud regulations by the Chinese government. Its ADS price
fell $6.92, or 22%, to close at $24.52 per share on August 24,
2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Soeng purchased Yirendai securities suffered losses as a result of
mandatory corrective disclosures.

Defendant is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

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

              - and -

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

              - and -

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


YIRENDAI LTD: Faces Class Action, Oct. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Yirendai Ltd. ("Yirendai" or
the "Company") (NYSE: YRD) and certain of its officers.  The class
action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Yirendai securities between May 11, 2016
and August 24, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Yirendai was experiencing increasing fraud related to
customer applications for its loan products; (2) the
implementation of new anti-fraud regulations by the Chinese
government could have a negative impact on Yirendai's performance;
(3) consequently, Yirendai's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On August 24, 2016, Bloomberg reported that China imposed limits
on peer-to-peer lending in order to control risks in the loosely-
regulated shadow-banking sector.  These new regulations bar
lenders from taking public deposits or selling wealth-management
products, and force lenders to engage qualified banks as
custodians and improve information disclosure.  The new
regulations also cap individual borrowing at 1 million yuan
($150,000). Following this news, Yirendai stock dropped over 22%,
to close at $24.52 per share on August 24, 2016.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/yrdor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Yirendai you have until October 25, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  In addition to representing institutions and other
investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the
firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial
litigation, as well as securities arbitration.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deadlines Held in Abeyance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that a court has held in
abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline for the
filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial in
a consolidated class action lawsuit.

A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the New Class Actions").

The Waring action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for
all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron
Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved
its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages.

The court has certified a class of investors that includes those
that purchased Symbol common stock between March 12, 2004 and
August 1, 2005.

The parties have substantially completed fact and expert
discovery. However, there are certain discovery motions pending
that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery.

The court has held in abeyance all other deadlines, including the
deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a
date for trial.

The Company said, "One of the insurers in our insurance group has
denied insurance coverage and is not agreeing to reimburse defense
costs incurred by the Company in connection with this matter. The
Company is pursuing the actions it deems necessary and reasonable
to obtain reimbursement of its defense costs from the insurer."


* CFTC, FIA Object to CFPB Arbitration Proposal
-----------------------------------------------
Gary DeWaal, Esq. -- gary.dewaal@kattenlaw.com -- of Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Futures Industry
Association filed comment letters with the US Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (CFPB) objecting, in part, to a proposed rule
by the CFPB that would prohibit arbitration agreements that barred
consumers from filing or participating in class action litigations
regarding covered consumer financial products or services.
Language in the preamble to the proposed rule would subject the
rule's requirements to "any product or service that is subject to
both the Bureau's and [CFTC's arbitration rules]."  Both the CFTC
and FIA pointed out that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over
the regulated activities of CFTC registrants, and any CFPB rule
may not also regulate such activities.


* Maurice Blackburn Lawyer Targets Queensland Poker Machines
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherele Moody, writing for Chinchilla News, reports that class
action legal expert Jacob Varghese is taking on the gaming
industry with an Australia-first case to determine whether poker
machines breach Australian consumer law.

The Maurice Blackburn lawyer, working with the Alliance for
Gambling Reform, hopes the legal action will force the gaming
industry to rethink the way it operates.

Mr. Varghese believes poker machine designers have produced
"misleading and deceptive" products that encourage addictive
behavior by tricking people into thinking they are winning when
they are actually losing money.

"This is a landmark legal action that will focus on the behavior
of gaming machine manufacturers and designers," he said.

"We're running this case pro bono because we're alarmed at the
enormous harm that is done by poker machines in the community, and
we hope this action can play a key role in improving the way the
industry operates for consumers."

While the outcome of the class action could be years away, the end
result may one day influence how much money is returned to
Queensland gamblers.

Queensland poker machines are required by law to return 85-92% of
their turnover to gamblers.

This means gaming venues retain 8-15% of each dollar gambled.

However, Monash University gambling researcher Dr. Charles
Livingstone explained this does not mean that if a player spends
$100 they will get $85-92 back at the end of their gaming session.

This is because the actual "return to player" ratio is achieved
over the machine's three to four-year lifespan.

"Remember that every time a gambler pushes the button on a 90%
return to player machine they lose an average of 10%," Dr
Livingstone said.

"So, on average, if you start with 100 credits you will have 90
credits after the first spin, 81 after the second, 72.9 after the
third, and so on, until the money is all gone."

Dr. Livingstone said Queensland hotels paid a flat tax of 35% on
their poker machine revenue while community-run clubs paid an
"effective average" tax of 27%.

"Clubs do not pay corporations tax and in Queensland they are
taxed at a lower rate than hotels," he said.

This means that a club with an annual turnover of $20m a year from
poker machines will keep $14,585,732.

"So, in other words, they keep 73 cents from every dollar someone
loses on pokies in their venue," Dr. Livingstone said.


* Securities Class Actions Rise to 119 in First Half of 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Danley-Greiner, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Attorney Tom Gorman, Esq. -- gorman.tom@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey &
Whitney, says he's seen a "record number" of cases involving
public companies and individuals involved in regulatory actions.

These actions revolve around such claims as insider trading,
market manipulation, financial fraud, accounting and auditing
issues, corporate governance matters and Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act issues.

Mr. Gorman also defends securities class action and derivative
suits.  A new report from Cornerstone Research says in the first
half of 2016, there were 119 new securities class actions filed,
compared to 87 filed during the same period in 2015.

From 1997 to 2015, there were only 94 actions filed. Gorman said
the increase could be attributed to a "substantial uptick" in the
number of challenges to mergers and acquisitions.

For the current fiscal year, Mr. Gorman believes there will be an
even higher amount of cases filed than in the previous fiscal
year.

"I believe it's 750 cases or something close to that," he said.
"It was a record number of cases."

Mr. Gorman believes this is because of what he calls the "broken
window" in government policy.

"That's where virtually every action, no matter how small or
insignificant, is brought up," he said.  "There has been the
questioning of how effective it really is to be bringing in large
numbers of cases like this.  These cases don't usually generate a
large number of dollars, but it does bring about a large number of
cases and attention to the issues."

Mr. Gorman said he doesn't feel this approach is effective in
securities regulation or in situations where a senior executive
with a company has been "fudging numbers" on financial statements
or even someone with inside information being restrained from
trading.

"We saw four-dozen small strict liability cases brought in, which
are totally different than others, and I think that rationale is
questionable at best," he said.



                            *********

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  * * *