CAR_Public/160923.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 191




                            Headlines


9TH AVE LIME: Faces "Sontay" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Set for Sept. 29 in "Augustus"
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in "Bucio" Case
ALERE INC: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
AMERICAN REALTY: SEC Says Execs Misled Investors

APPLE INC: Faces "Frank" Suit Over Upgrade Program
AVADHUT LLC: Faces Texas Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Case Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Case Remains Pending
BCFS HEALTH: Faces "Douglas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA

BEST BUY: IBEW Has Until Oct. 14 to Petition Supreme Court
BIG LOTS: Class Suit in Early Stages of Discovery
BOCA FRESH: Faces "Henriquez" Suit Over FLSA Violation
BROADCOM LIMITED: Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint Underway
BROADCOM LIMITED: Filed Answering Brief in Class Action Appeal

BROADCOM LIMITED: Nov. 17 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Over Ruckus Acquisition Dismissed
CAMERON INT'L: Faces "Gardea" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
CEPHALON: 3rd Cir. Decertified Class of Provigil Wholesalers
CHICAGO AUTO: Faces "Vargas" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law

CHICO'S FAS: Settlement in Class Action Has Preliminary Approval
CHICO'S FAS: "Cunningham" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman
CHICO'S FAS: "Rodenms" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman
CHICO'S FAS: Reviewing "Calleros" Class Action Allegations
CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint

CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court
COMENITY: Makes Illegal Debt-Collection Robocalls, Suit Claims
CONN'S INC: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Action
COOPER COMPANIES: Actions by Contact Lens Consumers in Discovery
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Fully Briefed

DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Store Manager Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Distribution Center Employee Case
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Store Manager's Case
DOLLAR TREE: Former Assistant Store Managers' Suit Stayed
DOLLAR TREE: Class Action in Florida State Court Still Pending

DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suit by Former Hourly Sales Associate
DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Dismissed FLSA Suit by Ex-Store Manager
DOLLAR TREE: Merits Discovery Proceeds in Female Managers' Case
DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Begins in Family Dollar Employee's Case
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee Appeals Case Dismissal

DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Granted Motion for Summary Judgment
EAST RAMAPO SCHOOL: 2nd Cir. Dismissed Class Action
ENCORE BRANDS: "Gonzalez-Fajardo" Suit Alleges Labor Code Breach
ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Garzon Residents Pending
ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Codensa Residents Pending

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by AmSurg
EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALS: "Meraz" Suit to Recoup OT Pay
FEI COMPANY: Hialeah Retirement System Sues Over Sale to Thermo
FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Class Suit Still Pending
FOXX TAILS: Dancers/Entertainers' Suit Assert Violation of FLSA

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Failed to Properly Track Cadavers, Suit Claims
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "London" Suit Alleges Zofran(R)-Linked Death
GRANITE CITY: Faces "Koenig" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Act
GREE ELECTRIC: Four Insurance Companies File Class Action
H&R BLOCK: Compliance Fee Litigation Still Pending

H&R BLOCK: 8th Cir. Appeal in "Perras" Case Underway
HARVEST NATURAL: Wins Dismissal of "Phillips" Case
HEWLETT PACKARD: Claims of 2 Individuals Remain Pending
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Suit Over "Smart Install" Software
HOMEAWAY: Faces Housing Discrimination Class Action

HP INC: Case Management Conference in "Forsyth" Set for Nov. 16
HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Case Appeal
INFUSION BRANDS: "Flint" Class Action Not Yet Served
INSULET CORPORATION: ATRS et al. Balk at Bid to Dismiss Case
INTEGRITY REALTY: Faces "Flaesgarten" Suit in Ohio District Court

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Ex-Employee Files Action Over Sexual Harassment
J. C. PENNEY: Marcus Consolidated Class Action Remains Pending
J. C. PENNEY: $4.5MM Accord in ERISA Action Awaits Court OK
J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends "Tschudy" Class Action
J. C. PENNEY: Settlement in Pricing Class Action Still Pending

JOY GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Komatsu
JUST SALAD: Faces "Camara" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
KC JEWELRY: Inflates Weight of Small Diamonds, Suit Says
LG CORP: Faces "A. Frost" No-Poaching Class Action

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Appeal of Case Dismissal Pending
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends Gathmann-Landini Action
MAC ALTAMONTE: "Neusch" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Submission
MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Ontario Action

MEDTRONIC PLC: Has Deals to Settle 4,300 INFUSE Claims
MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 6,200 Pelvic Mesh Claims
MEDTRONIC PLC: W.Va. Pipe Trades and Phil Pace Appeal Dismissal
MEDTRONIC PLC: Minnesota Supreme Court Decision Expected in 2017
MENASHE RESTAURANT: Faces "Gomez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

MENTOR GRAPHICS: Class Not Certified in "Haroutunian" Case
MICHIGAN: Schools Fail to Provide Basic Literacy Tools, Suit Says
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: "Litwin" Suit Files Suit Over Randstad Merger
MORELIA MEXICAN: Faces "Brens" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Next Status Conference Set for October 28

NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 25
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Savings Plan Beneficiaries File Suit in Calif.
NYC BUILDING: Faces "Quiroz" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Beeney" Case in California Remains Stayed

PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case in California Remains Stayed
PAPA FRESH: "Mayoral-Climico" Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation Pending
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Action
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Nov. 2016 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Settlement

PERFORMANCE FOOD: Motion to Dismiss "Perez" Case Pending
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Paid $3.75MM Settlement Fund in "Contreras"
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Settled Vengris's Individual Claim
PURE STORAGE: Faces "Ramsay" Class Action in California
RELIABLE CLEAN-UP: Faces "Lopez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Court Has Not Issued Final Order on Judgment
SAHARA BEACH: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: S7 Phones Not Water-Resistant, Suit Claims
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Broiler Chicken Prices
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

SHIRE PLC: Final Decision in ELAPRASE Suit Expected in 18 Months
SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,094 Employees Join Collective Action
SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Defends Lawsuit by EOCC
SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against Zale Litigation
SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Dube" Shareholder Action in New York

SILICON GRAPHICS: Class Action Filed Over HPE Acquisition
SIMONIZ USA: Faces "Burgos" Suit Under FLSA, Conn. Min. Wage Act
SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Lifetime Subscriptions
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: "Williams" Sues Directors Over Pay Scheme
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: "de Leon" Suit Invokes FLSA, Fla. Wage Act

TAILORED BRANDS: Defending Against "Makhlouf" Action
TAILORED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss "Lucas" Action Pending
TILLY'S INC: Appeal in "Christiansen" Class Action Underway
TILLY'S INC: Nov. 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Rebolledo" Case
TILLY'S INC: Settlement Reached in "Whitten" Class Action

TILLY'S INC: Hearing Date on Demurrer Set for October 19
TRS RECOVERY: Faces "Grind" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Lawyer Wants Case Trial Delayed
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Say Opt-Outs Can't Testify
VALSPAR CORPORATION: "Mitsopoulos" Lawsuit Dismissed

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: ISA Submits Position Paper on Class Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Underway
VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Denied Motion to Certify Lawsuit
VOYA FINANCIAL: Nestle 401(k) Savings Planholders File Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Paid $242MM Judgment in Wage-And-Hour Action

WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Equal Value Claims Still Pending
WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Challenged
WILLIS LTD: Faces Suit by Stanford Claimants
ZAIS FINANCIAL: Faces Merger Class Action in Maryland Court


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Dropped as Defendant in "Floyd"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Man Drops Asbestos Claims vs. Crown Cork
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Man Ordered to Prosecute Suit vs. Pharmacia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Couple Drops Claims vs. Air & Liquid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florida Tightens Reins Proving Causation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Probe Puts Libby Program On Hold
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Cos. Not Liable for Take Home Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair Woman Blames Cos. for Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Ct. Ruling Did Not Bring Flood of Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jury Reaches Defense Verdicts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Air Force Mechanic's Widow Sues Dozens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Died of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landlord Accused of Illegal Asbestos Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flint Law Adds Attys to Expand Asbestos Practice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staffordshire Worker Died from Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Ct. Flips $8MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Hotelier Dies From Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects $8-Mil. Verdict in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Worker Awarded Nearly $13MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Asbestos Fibers Can Move in Soil

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Revives Dust Claims vs. CBS


                            *********


9TH AVE LIME: Faces "Sontay" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA SONTAY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 9TH AVE LIME JUNGLE, INC. (d/b/a
LIMON JUNGLE), BESIM KUKAJ, and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-07076 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Limon Jungle is a Mexican restaurant owned by Besim Kukaj.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Set for Sept. 29 in "Augustus"
------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that oral argument
has been scheduled for September 29, 2016, in the appeal in the
consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall, and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case")

The Augustus case is a certified class action involving alleged
violations of certain California state laws relating to rest
breaks. The case centers on whether requiring security guards to
remain on call during rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the
California Labor Code.

On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million (the "common fund"). Subsequently, the
Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of
approximately $4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of the
common fund.

The Company said, "We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate
District (the "Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals
Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and
the attorneys' fees award. Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the
Appeals Court's decision to reverse the judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and vacate the damages award."

"On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and
certified the opinion for publication. The Appeals Court opinion
held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on
call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid
under California law. The Appeals Court explained that "although
on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to
work is not the same as performing work. . . .  Section 226.7
proscribes only work on a rest break."

The plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court on March 4, 2015, and on April 29, 2015, the
California Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition.

"Oral argument has been scheduled for September 29, 2016. We
believe that the Appeals Court correctly ruled in our favor, and
we look forward to presenting our arguments to the California
Supreme Court," the Company said.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in "Bucio" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that oral argument
has not been scheduled in the class action appeal in the
consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial
Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case").

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19,
2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider,
which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class
certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal.

On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on
the class certification issues.

"We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument
relating to the appeal has not been scheduled," the Company said.


ALERE INC: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit has been
dismissed with prejudice.

SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH is currently involved in
civil litigation brought by a competitor in the United States with
respect to the advertising of one of SPD's products in the United
States. During 2015, SPD appealed the district court's injunction
with respect to sales and advertising of such product, which was
based on a finding that SPD violated certain laws with respect to
the advertising of such product. The appellate court has issued a
stay of the injunction, pending the outcome of the appeal.

In addition, a class action lawsuit has been initiated against SPD
Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, and Procter & Gamble in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of certain laws in connection with
the sales and advertising of one of SPD's products which claims
are based on similar grounds as those at issue in the litigation
described above in this paragraph.

On August 19, 2016, the class action lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice. The plaintiffs may appeal the decision prior to
September 19, 2016.

The Company said, "There may be additional lawsuits against SPD or
us relating to this matter in the future. The ultimate resolution
of these matters is not known at this time, nor is the potential
impact they or future litigation may have on SPD or us, including
whether any such resolution or any damages imposed by a court
would have a material adverse impact on SPD and, ultimately, by
virtue of our 50% interest in SPD, on our financial position or
results of operations."


AMERICAN REALTY: SEC Says Execs Misled Investors
------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Securities and Exchange Commission claims two former
executives misled investors by plugging in fake numbers to
overstate the performance of a real-estate investment trust.

The charges come almost two years after American Realty Capital
Properties admitted errors on its registration statements prepared
in connection with its sale of 138 million shares in May 2014, at
$12 per share.

Founded in 2010, the trust had 3,809 properties as of March 31,
2014, consisting of 101.8 million square feet of leasable space.

The SEC says then-chief financial officer Brian S. Block and then-
chief accounting officer Lisa P. McAlister conspired to manipulate
the calculation of the trust's adjusted funds from operations, or
AFFO, figure, which is a measure of the trust's net income and
"its most important financial metric."

"With McAlister in his office, Block plugged in fake numbers that
concealed the first quarter overstatement of AFFO and made it
appear that the company had met second-quarter estimates when, in
fact, it had fallen short," the SEC said in a statement.

Through Block and McAlister's fraud, the trust overstated its
first quarter AFFO by $12 million out of a total of $147 million,
according to an SEC lawsuit filed on September 8, in Southern New
York Federal Court.

Both executives actively lied about the use of plugged numbers
when queried about the change in AFFO numbers by the firm's
auditor and in-house counsel, the complaint states.

Five months after the May 2014 offering brought in net proceeds of
$1.59 billion, the trust announced on Oct. 29 that the forms it
previously filed with the SEC should not be relied upon.

Shares fell 36 percent in intraday trading to as low as $7.85 on
Oct. 29, 2014. In the following two years, the trust's share price
never reached its pre-revelation price. Shares traded at $10.02 on
September 12.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York announced criminal charges against Block and
McAlister.

American Realty also faces a shareholder class action based on the
same fraud allegations. That complaint was filed in December 2014.

The case is captioned, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, against BRIAN S. BLOCK and LISA PAVELKA MCALISTER,
Defendants., 16 Civ. 7003 (S.D.N.Y)


APPLE INC: Faces "Frank" Suit Over Upgrade Program
--------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
days before Apple's iPhone 7 even hits stores, one of the
company's customers sued the smartphone manufacturing giant,
saying it broke faith with its most loyal customers in its quest
for a greater market share.

Emil Frank, a Brooklyn resident who bought the iPhone Upgrade
Program, filed a class action in San Jose, Calif. federal court on
September 12, claiming that Apple is not living up to the promises
it made customers who purchased the program.

The program, unveiled in 2015, promised Apple members the
opportunity to upgrade to annual new versions of the iPhone as
long as certain conditions were met -- in this case 12 payments
within 6 months, according to the complaint.

"The iPhone Upgrade Program offered Apple's biggest fans and most
loyal customers a way to make simple monthly payments in exchange
for the newest iPhones, with a promise that 'every year' the
customer would be able to trade in last year's iPhone and receive
the newest version of the phone," Frank says in the complaint.

However, when Apple made their latest smartphone, the iPhone 7,
available on Sept. 9, the upgrade programs customers were
prevented from selecting the product of their choice and were
instead directed to various stores that had what Frank describes
as an artificially low inventory.

"This is not just a problem created by the limited supply of the
newly released iPhones," Frank says. "Rather, Apple intentionally
limited the inventory available to iPhone Upgrade Program
customers (who are already contractually locked into making
monthly payments for their old devices) to capture sales from new
customers who weren't already part of the program."

Some of the upgrade program customers have been told to wait until
November, while new customers purchasing their phones through
Verizon or AT&T were able to purchase new phones long after the
upgrade customers were told inventory was low, Frank says in the
complaint.

Frank woke up at 2:45 a.m. on September 9, in eager anticipation
of procuring the iPhone 7, the complaint says. However, after he
was diverted to the procurement process specific to upgrade
program customers, it became apparent that no phones were
available in New York City.

Expanding his search to Albany and Buffalo, and then eventually to
stores as far away as North Carolina, Frank says he was unable to
locate the device of his choice.

Apple is violating the promise of its program by making its
customers pay for outdated phones while they wait for inventory to
catch up, Franks says. This will create even further delays next
year, as customers have to make 12 payments on one phone before
qualifying for the upgrade, according to the lawsuit.

"For these customers, having quick access to the latest technology
is the very reason they signed up for the program in the first
place," Frank says.

Frank says he and other customers of the upgrade program are
victims of a breach of contract and that the implementation of the
iPhone Upgrade Program was deceptive.  He seeks punitive and
compensatory damages.

An email sent to Apple requesting comment was not returned as of
press time.


AVADHUT LLC: Faces Texas Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZARINA GHANY INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED VS. AVADHUT, LLC D/B/A BROW SHAPE, Case 6:16-cv-01151
(E.D. Tex., September 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff's job at Brow Shape was as an eyebrow shaper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
     HOMMEL LAW FIRM
     1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
     Tyler, TX 75703
     Phone: 903-596-7100
     Fax: 469-533-1618


BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation is pending.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Case Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the case, Christine N.
Hartpence individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., remains pending.

Christine Hartpence filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
("Barnes & Noble") in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on
May 26, 2015 (Case No.: 160503426), alleging that she is entitled
to unpaid compensation for overtime under Pennsylvania law and
seeking to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated
employees who performed the same position (CafÇ Manager).

On July 14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a
purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime
compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, by which
she seeks to act as a class representative for similarly situated
CafÇ Managers throughout the United States.

On July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.:
16-4034), where it is currently pending.


BCFS HEALTH: Faces "Douglas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Scott Douglas, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BCFS Health and Human Services d/b/a
Baptist Child & Family Services, Baptist Care Facilities for
Persons with Mental Disabilities, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Care
Facilities, and Breckenridge Village of Tyler d/b/a BVT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01010 (E.D. Tex., September 9, 2016),
was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide supervised environments for persons with
intellectual disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Gregory S. Porter, Esq.
     PORTER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     3311 Woods Blvd.
     Tyler, TX 75707
     Phone: (903) 561-5144
     Fax: (903) 705-6253
     E-mail: greg@gregporterlaw.com


BEST BUY: IBEW Has Until Oct. 14 to Petition Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reported that Best Buy
shareholders accusing the retailer's executives of securities law
violations will get extra time to petition the U.S. Supreme Court
for review of the Eighth Circuit's reversal of a Minnesota federal
judge's certification of a class, according to a letter docketed
Sept. 1, 2016.  Plaintiffs including the IBEW Local 98 Pension
Fund now have an Oct. 14 deadline for petitioning the justices in
Washington, D.C., for review of the circuit's reversal.

Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that, "In February 2011, a
purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of
our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other
things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated
Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under
the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other
statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had
been made available to the public."

"Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and
certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice.

"In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012,
the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's
decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November
2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A
hearing was held on April 26, 2013.

"On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion
to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying
the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the
statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking
statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor"
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class.

"By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. On
April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court misapplied
the law and reversed the class certification order.

"IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which
was denied on June 1, 2016. We await a decision by IBEW as to
whether it will appeal. We continue to believe that these
allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our
company in this matter."


BIG LOTS: Class Suit in Early Stages of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
is in the early stages of discovery.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses."

"The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013,
which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a
defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23,
2012.

"On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward. The case is in the
early stages of discovery."


BOCA FRESH: Faces "Henriquez" Suit Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
JACOBO HENRIQUEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. BOCA FRESH PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a
RED APPLE FARMERS MARKET, and ABE FRIEDMAN, Defendants, Case No.
9:16-cv-81568-DMM (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2016), arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Boca Fresh Produce Corporation is a fresh fruits and vegetable
company located in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BROADCOM LIMITED: Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016,
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the Federal Consolidated
Complaint remains pending.

Since the announcement of the Broadcom Transaction, 11 putative
class action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on
behalf of alleged BRCM shareholders. Two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015;
and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303,
filed on August 15, 2015, or the Federal Actions. On September 2,
2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter
filed an amended complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal
securities laws.

One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June
2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp.,
et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015;
N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed
June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the
State Actions).

The Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among
other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM's board of directors and
Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches.
Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 14-a9.

On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating
the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder Cases, JCCP
4834. On September 18, 2015, the United States District Court for
the Central District of California consolidated the Federal
Actions under the caption In re Broadcom Corporation Stockholder
Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979. On September 25, 2015, the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of the Federal
Actions.

On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed
additional proxy materials with the SEC. On November 10, 2015,
BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Transaction.
On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in the Federal Actions.

On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the
Federal Consolidated Compliant, which names as defendants, among
other parties, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those
alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

On February 1, 2016, we completed the acquisition of BRCM. On
February 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Federal Consolidated Complaint.

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


BROADCOM LIMITED: Filed Answering Brief in Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016,
that the Defendants-Appellees have filed their answering brief in
an appeal in the lawsuit relating to the acquisition of Emulex.

On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago
Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless,
and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows:
James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL
(Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11,
2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.).

The complaints alleged, among other things, that Emulex's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and
among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the Merger Agreement,
and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among
other things, either to enjoin the transaction or to rescind it
following its completion, as well as damages, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating
the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-
VCL. On May 5, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Emulex. On
June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated
action without prejudice.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names
as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub,
and purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed to provide
material information and/or omitted material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with
the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto. The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock,
as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On July 28, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On
September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the court granted with prejudice on January 13,
2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2016. The
appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088.

On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief
and on August 17, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their
answering brief.


BROADCOM LIMITED: Nov. 17 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016,
that a hearing on a class action settlement is scheduled for
November 17, 2016.

In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara
challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court
consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That
same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending
resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Pluto
Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and abetted
the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's
Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9, as filed
with the SEC, contained false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder
vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 3, 2015, the court granted motions to dismiss filed
by AT Wireless, the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors,
and denied motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX
directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank
Securities.

On August 17, 2016, the five remaining PLX director-defendants and
Deutsche Bank Securities entered into a stipulation of partial
settlement to resolve claims against all of the former PLX
directors and Deutsche Bank Securities asserted in the Delaware
class action. The partial settlement also provides for a release
of all potential claims against AT Wireless, Pluto Merger Sub,
Avago and PLX. Defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. is not
a party to the settlement. This partial settlement is subject to
court approval following notice to the putative class of PLX
shareholders. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for
November 17, 2016.

The Delaware class litigation is on-going.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Over Ruckus Acquisition Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Small
class action lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
August 29, 2016.

Subsequent to the announcement that Brocade had entered into an
agreement to acquire Ruckus on April 3, 2016, three putative
stockholder class action complaints relating to the acquisition
were filed on behalf of purported Ruckus stockholders in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, a fourth
putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and a
fifth putative class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaints in the three California state court actions are
captioned: Maguire v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed April
12, 2016 and amended on May 10, 2016; referred to as the "Maguire
action"); Jaljouli v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al., (filed April
19, 2016; referred to as the "Jaljouli action"); and Small v.
Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed May 12, 2016; referred to as
the "Small action"). The complaint in the Delaware federal court
action is captioned Borrego v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al.
(filed May 11, 2016; referred to as the "Borrego action"). The
complaint in the California federal court action is captioned
Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2016;
referred to as the "Hussey action").

The complaints in the Maguire, Jaljouli and Small actions contain
similar allegations and name Ruckus and members of the Ruckus
board of directors as defendants; the Maguire and Jaljouli actions
also name Brocade and a Brocade subsidiary as defendants. In
general, the complaints allege that the members of the Ruckus
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Ruckus
stockholders by purportedly doing one or more of the following:
agreeing to unfair and inadequate transaction consideration for
the Ruckus shares; accepting unreasonable deal protection measures
in the merger agreement that would dissuade other potential
bidders from making competing offers; failing to properly value
Ruckus and take steps to maximize the sale value of Ruckus;
engaging in self-dealing; and providing allegedly false,
misleading, and/or incomplete disclosures regarding the
transaction, the negotiations leading up to it, and the opinion of
Ruckus' financial advisor. The complaints in the Maguire and
Jaljouli actions also allege that one or more of Ruckus, Brocade,
and the Brocade subsidiary aided and abetted the members of the
Ruckus board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to
Ruckus stockholders.

The complaint in the Borrego action alleges that Ruckus and
members of the Ruckus board of directors violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false
and/or misleading statements and/or alleged omissions in the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed by
Ruckus with the SEC on April 29, 2016. The complaint in the Hussey
action, which names Ruckus, members of the Ruckus board of
directors, Ruckus' chief financial officer, Brocade, and a Brocade
subsidiary as defendants, contains a similar Section 14(e) claim
and also alleges that the defendants violated Section14(d)(7) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder based on
the allegedly differential consideration received by members of
the Ruckus board of directors and Ruckus' chief financial officer
in connection with the acquisition.

The plaintiffs in one or more of these five actions have requested
relief including, among other things, certification as a class,
rescission and invalidation of the merger agreement or related
agreements, injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
an award of damages and an accounting, an award of the costs and
disbursements of the action (including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees), and other equitable relief that the court may deem
just and proper.

The Small action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
August 29, 2016.


CAMERON INT'L: Faces "Gardea" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY GARDEA, PLAINTIFF, individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated vs. CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00904 (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2016), seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cameron International Corporation provides flow equipment
products, systems, and services worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEPHALON: 3rd Cir. Decertified Class of Provigil Wholesalers
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decertified a
class of wholesalers who say the drugmaker Cephalon paid generic
competitors to stay out of the market for its wakefulness drug
Provigil.

Consumers and retailers alike have brought lawsuits for years over
these so-called reverse settlements. To maintain lucrative
exclusivity, brand-name pharmaceutical companies pay generic
manufacturers to silence patent suits.

Cephalon, which Teva Pharmaceuticals bought in 2011, agreed last
month to a $125 million settlement with 48 states over its
anticompetitive Provigil dealings. A 2015 settlement with a class
of direct purchasers of Provigil meanwhile cost the company $512
million.

Before its Teva merger, the Israeli pharmaceutical giant had been
one four drugmakers

Cephalon paid $300 million to drop their patent suits against
Provigil. At the time, Cephalon determined that generic modafinil
would cost about 90 percent less than Provigil.

Twenty-two wholesalers challenging the deal won class
certification last year in Philadelphia, but the Third Circuit
overturned that ruling 2-1 on September 13.

"The District Court abused its discretion in analyzing the two
most important numerosity factors when it considered the late
stage of the litigation as relevant to the judicial economy factor
and failed to properly consider the ability and motivation of the
plaintiffs to proceed as joined, as opposed to individual,
parties," U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for the
majority.

Three of the named wholesalers each have estimated claims of over
$1 billion, even before any punitive damages award, and only six
plaintiffs have claims under $1 million, according to the 64-page
opinion.

"While it may be uneconomical for these claims to be pursued in
individual litigation, there has been no showing that it would be
uneconomical for these six class members to be individually joined
as parties in a traditional lawsuit," Smith wrote.

Affirming though that the wholesalers have antitrust standing, the
court noted that the Cephalon's reverse-payment settlement
agreements prevented a competitive market from forming. Each of
the four generic manufacturers can be held jointly liable for
damages, the ruling says.

"This is not the sum of four separate individual harms emanating
from each agreement; instead, it is a harm that all four
agreements work jointly to produce, even if there was no
conspiracy between the generic manufacturers," Smith wrote.
"Defendants' attempt to dictate plaintiffs' theory of liability
based on the doctrine of antitrust standing should fail."

Writing in dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell blasted
the majority for "erecting roadblocks that do not exist."

Rendell said there were "obvious practical reasons" that would
stand in the way of the wholesalers pursuing their claims via
joinder instead of as a class.

"I am struck by the inescapable fact that this case has proceeded
as a class action for years and nothing about it cries out for
anything but class treatment," Rendell said. "One has only to read
the majority's analysis of the real issues before the court to
conclude that it is unimaginable that this case should be torn
apart at this late date and sent to the far corners of the United
States to start over again as separate actions before several
judges, each deciding anew the identical issues facing each
plaintiff's claims. It should not be remanded at this late date."

The protracted litigation, initiated in 2006, bears heightened
significance since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC
v. Actavis, which held that reverse settlements could be illegal
in some cases but did not specify what those situations are.

The case is captioned, IN RE: MODAFINIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No.
15-3475 (3rd Cir.).  A copy of the decision is available at
https://is.gd/LU8qs7 from Leagle.com.


CHICAGO AUTO: Faces "Vargas" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Sergio Vargas individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chicago Auto Pros, Inc. and Greg
Natonson, individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-08747 (N.D.
Ill., September 8, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate Chicago Auto at 2075 Johns Ct., Glenview,
Illinois 60025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


CHICO'S FAS: Settlement in Class Action Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the settlement in the
"Ackerman" class action lawsuit has been granted preliminary
approval.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney
General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage
statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among
other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make
the same allegations on a class action basis.

In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the
matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on
August 26, 2016. If finally approved, the settlement will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.

Ackerman Ludie, Esq., is represented by Law Offices of Peter M.
Hart

Chico's Fas, Inc., is represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP


CHICO'S FAS: "Cunningham" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was named
in March 2016 as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a
putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and
former nonexempt employees of Soma Intimates in California. The
Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as the
Ackerman class action. The court has stayed the Cunningham case
pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement in light of the
fact that Ackerman was first filed and likely covers all of the
claims that are alleged in Cunningham. As a result, at this time,
the Company does not expect that the Cunningham case will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: "Rodenms" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was named
in June 2016as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a
putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Fresno. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former
nonexempt employees of Chico's stores in California. The Complaint
alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as the Ackerman
class action lawsuit.  The court has stayed the matter pending
final approval of the Ackerman settlement for the same reasons
described in the Cunningham case. As a result, at this time, the
Company does not expect that the Rodems case will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition
or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: Reviewing "Calleros" Class Action Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was named
as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class
action filed on July 28, 2016, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the
Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to
provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less
than $10.00.

The Company is reviewing the factual allegations in the Complaint
and is not yet able to ascertain the merit or the value of the
claims asserted. On initial review, the Company believes that the
matter is not appropriate for class treatment; however, it is not
possible to predict whether it will be permitted to proceed as a
class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be
given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this
action on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is in the very
early stage and class determinations have not been made, the
Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss.


CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class
action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending
acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On June 23, 2015, each of these
lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action
complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, a Ciena subsidiary
created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition
("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of directors.

On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of
Cyan's board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not
named as defendants.

On July 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales
process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition,
taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to
disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make
an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The third amended
complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled
to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii)
recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result
of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory
damages, and (v) costs including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

On August 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. Ciena believes that the consolidated
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the defendants have
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court, to which the plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition.

As a result of Ciena's acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit.

On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors,
Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of
Cyan's initial public offering.

On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in
the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have
been consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et
al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-538355. The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf
of a purported class consisting of purchasers of Cyan's common
stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus for Cyan's initial public offering in April 2013, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. On August 25,
2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the
case, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015.

On May 24, 2016, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, to which the
plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition. Ciena believes that the
consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.

Information on the case is available at:

             http://www.cyansecuritieslitigation.com/

Attorneys for Petitioners Cyan, Inc., et al.:

     BORIS FELDMAN, Esq.
     IGNACIO E. SALCEDA, Esq.
     GIDEON A. SCHOR, Esq.
     AARON J. BENJAMIN, Esq.
     ELI B. RICHLIN, Esq.
     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC
     650 Page Mill Road
     Palo Alto, CA 94304
     Tel: (650) 493-9300
     E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
             isalceda@wsgr.com
             gschor@wsgr.com
             abenjamin@wsgr.com
             erichlin@wsgr.com


COMENITY: Makes Illegal Debt-Collection Robocalls, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Comenity makes illegal debt-
collection robocalls to cellphones, consumers claim in a federal
class action in Waco, Texas.


CONN'S INC: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Conn's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2016, that the parties in the Securities
Class Action Litigation have negotiated a scheduling order, which
has not yet been entered by the Court, and discovery is
proceeding.

The Company said, "We and one of our current and one of our former
executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), In re Conn's
Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the
"Consolidated Securities Action"). The Consolidated Securities
Action started as three separate purported securities class action
lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014, which were
combined into the Consolidated Securities Action on June 3, 2014.

"The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that
the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations,
and prospects. They allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seek to certify a class of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or
call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3,
2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the
amount of damages sought.

"On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs
to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling,
and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint on July 21, 2015.

"The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28,
2015. The briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was fully
briefed and the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion over
the course of two days, on March 25 and 29, 2016.

"On May 6, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion requesting the Court's
decision be certified for interlocutory appeal to the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Court denied on
June 13, 2016.

"On June 24, 2016, the defendant's filed their answer to the
Consolidated Securities Action, denying liability and raising
numerous affirmative defenses to the claims asserted against them.

"The parties have negotiated a scheduling order, which has not yet
been entered by the Court, and discovery is proceeding.

"The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these
claims."


COOPER COMPANIES: Actions by Contact Lens Consumers in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the class action
complaints by contact lens consumers are in discovery.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The
plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various
courts around the United States.

In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. CooperVision and the other defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the complaints in December 2015.

In June 2016, the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought
under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act was granted, but the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Section 1
of the Sherman Act and other state laws was denied. The actions
currently are in discovery.

CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.  "At this time, we do not believe a loss or
adverse effect on our financial condition is probable nor is any
range of potential loss reasonably estimable," the Company said.


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Fully Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit is fully briefed.

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-
03644).  The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain
current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made
false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations
and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. The motion is fully briefed and a ruling is expected
in 2016. The defendants believe the claims asserted are without
merit and the risk of material loss is remote.


DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Store Manager Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are awaiting court approval of the settlement in
the case.

In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and
others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law
currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges
that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and
rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages;
failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and
failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment.

In May 2014, the same assistant store manager filed a putative
class action in a California state court for essentially the same
conduct alleged in the federal court PAGA case. The parties have
reached an agreement to settle the two cases and the proposed
settlement amount has been accrued. The two courts must approve
the terms of the settlement for it to be binding and final.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Distribution Center Employee Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a distribution center
employee filed in April 2015 a class action in California state
court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks,
recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay.
Recently, the employee filed an amended complaint in which he
abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt
distribution center employees for alleged improper calculation of
overtime compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to federal
court.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Store Manager's Case
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former store manager
filed in April 2015 a class action in California state court
alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime
compensation and meal and rest periods, and alleging PAGA claims
on behalf of all store employees, including claims for failure to
provide accurate wage statements.

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


DOLLAR TREE: Former Assistant Store Managers' Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was served
in November 2015 in a PAGA representative action under California
law in California state court on behalf of former assistant store
managers alleging defective wage statements. This case has been
stayed pending the outcome of previously filed lawsuits alleging
defective wage statements.

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


DOLLAR TREE: Class Action in Florida State Court Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was served
in April 2016 with a putative class action in Florida state court
brought by a former store employee asserting the Company violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it handled background
checks. Specifically, the former employee alleged the Company used
disclosure forms that did not meet the statute's requirements and
failed to provide notices accompanied by background reports prior
to taking adverse actions against prospective and existing
employees based on information in the background reports. The
plaintiff is seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per
violation.

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


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suit by Former Hourly Sales Associate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former hourly sales
associate filed in July 2016 in federal court in Arkansas a
putative nationwide collective action alleging the Company forced
sales associates and assistant store managers to work off the
clock while clocked out for meal breaks and, as a result,
underpaid regular and overtime pay.


DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Dismissed FLSA Suit by Ex-Store Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that an assistant store
manager and an hourly associate filed in 2011 a collective action
against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the
clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made
on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and
state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an
opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales
associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. The
court approved settlement of the lawsuit which it has now
dismissed. The settlement amount has been paid.


DOLLAR TREE: Merits Discovery Proceeds in Female Managers' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that case by Family Dollar's
female store managers has been continued for merits discovery.

In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory practices
with respect to the pay of Family Dollar's female store managers.
Among other things, the plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
monetary and punitive remedies, interest, attorneys' fees, and
equitable relief.

In June 2016, the United States District Court in North Carolina
ordered that the case be continued for merits discovery. The court
also certified the case as a class action of approximately 30,000
current and former female store managers employed as far back as
July 2002. The court stated that it could modify its order or even
decertify the action in the future as the case develops.

The Company believes the class action cannot be certified under
the principles of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and prevailing
case law. If the case remains certified, the Company believes the
class can only cover Family Dollar store managers beginning in
late 2006 under any circumstance.

Although the Company believes that insurance is available for this
matter, potential losses may materially exceed policy coverage if
plaintiffs substantially prevail. The Company disagrees with
plaintiffs' claims, does not believe the class should remain
certified, and will vigorously defend itself in this matter.


DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Begins in Family Dollar Employee's Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former Family Dollar
employee brought in 2014 a putative class action and asserted
claims under PAGA alleging the Company failed to provide suitable
seating to its California store employees. The case had been
stayed pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court on whether
a drug store retailer has an obligation to provide suitable
seating to drug store cashiers. The California Supreme Court has
ruled, the stay has been lifted and the parties are beginning
discovery.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee Appeals Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that former Family Dollar
employees filed in 2015 a nationwide class action in federal court
in Connecticut alleging the Company had violated ERISA by
overcharging employees who purchased supplemental life insurance
through a Company sponsored plan. In March, 2016, the district
court dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiffs have appealed the
dismissal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Granted Motion for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former Family Dollar
employee filed in 2014 a nationwide class action in federal court
in Virginia alleging the Company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to comply with its requirements to give
an individual proper notice and a reasonable time to challenge the
results of a background check before taking action to deny the
person employment (or terminate existing employment). The
plaintiffs were seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per
violation. The district court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment in July 2016 without any liability to the
Company. Plaintiffs did not appeal and this case is now resolved.


EAST RAMAPO SCHOOL: 2nd Cir. Dismissed Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Second Circuit dismissed a class action accusing the East
Ramapo School District of unconstitutionally funneling public
money into private Orthodox Jewish institutions, holding the
plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims.

By a 2-1 vote, the circuit panel dismissed claims that members the
East Ramapo school board sympathetic to the interests of the
Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish community had violated the First Amendment
by collectively promoting the Hasidic Jewish faith in the public
school setting.

The plaintiff class consisted of parents living in the district
and children attending its schools.

Arguing that the student-plaintiffs lacked standing to assert
their Establishment Clause claims because "they are only
indirectly affected by the conduct alleged to violate the
Establishment Clause," the panel majority, consisting of U.S.
Circuit Judges Peter Hall and Raymond Lohier reversed the district
court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to
dismiss the claims against the school district.

The majority said the class action plaintiffs "lack standing to
assert their Establishment Clause claims because they are only
indirectly affected by the conduct alleged to violate the
Establishment Clause."

The class claimed the school board channeled money out of the
public school system and into yeshivas and other religious
organizations for the benefit of the Hasidic children's religious
education.

The plaintiffs claimed the board played fast and loose with the
requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
settlement process by offering preferential real estate deals to
Hasidic institutions and by buying religious books -- including
titles "I Keep Kosher" and "Let's Go to Shul!" -- with public
money and distributing the books to Hasidic institutions.

The class also argued school board members are not entitled to
qualified immunity.

The East Ramapo district, located about 45 minutes northwest of
New York City, has 33,000 students, but only 9,000 of them attend
its schools, according to the complaint.

The other 24,000 attend private school, nearly all of them in
yeshivas, or Orthodox Jewish schools. Several Hasidic villages and
hamlets are within the district's borders.

The lawsuit cited a 1991 fair housing lawsuit that referenced
displacement of the black and Latino communities in the Ramapo
district by an "exclusive white Hasidic enclave."

U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss, sitting by designation, wrote
a dissenting opinion, arguing the Establishment Clause does not
require "direct exposure" to the unconstitutional establishment of
religion and that the class does have adequate standing at the
pleadings stage.

The plaintiffs are represented by Laura Barbieri from Advocates
for Justice in New York City.

Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to a
request for comment from Courthouse News.


ENCORE BRANDS: "Gonzalez-Fajardo" Suit Alleges Labor Code Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL GONZALEZ-FAJARDO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, ENCORE BRANDS APPAREL GROUP,
INC., a California corporation; NORTHRIDGE MILLS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC6 3 318G (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, September 8, 2016), alleges failure to pay wages; failure
to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure
to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure
to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; knowing and
intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage
Statement Provisions; violations of the Unfair Competition Law;
and Recovery of Civil Penalties for Violation of Labor Code.

NORTHRIDGE MILLS, INC., a California corporation, operates a
garment contract manufacturing business in California.

ENCORE BRANDS APPAREL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, owns
NORTHRIDGE, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Brands
Apparel Group, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jose Garay, Esq.
     JOSE GARAY, LPLC
     23016 Lake Forest Drive, Suite A, #387
     Laguna Hills, CA 92653
     Phone: (949) 208-3400
     Fax: (949)713-0432
     E-mail: igaray@garavlaw.com


ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Garzon Residents Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Enersis Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1)
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a class action lawsuit has been filed by residents of the
Colombian Municipality of Garzon, alleging that the construction
of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project has caused the plaintiffs'
income from handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease
by an average of 30%. The lawsuit claims the decrease was not
considered when the project's social-economic impact report was
drafted.

Emgesa has denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the
social-economic impact report complied with all methodological
criteria, including giving all interested parties the opportunity
to be registered in the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not
residents and therefore, compensation is allowed only for those
whose revenues are, in their majority, coming from of their
activity in the direct area of influence of the El Quimbo
hydroelectric project and (iii) compensation must not go beyond
the "first link" of the production chain and must be based on the
status of the income indicators of each affected person.

A proceeding was filed in parallel by 38 inhabitants of the
Municipality of Garzon, who are claiming compensation for being
affected by the El Quimbo hydroelectric project since they were
not included in the social-economic impact report.

A mandatory settlement hearing was unsuccessful.  The court
ordered a test, which is currently in the preliminary phase.

In the parallel proceeding, an exception previous of pending
lawsuit was filed, based on the existence of the principal
proceeding. The proposed exception is pending ruling. The amount
involved in this proceeding is estimated to be approximately CPs
93 billion (approximately ThCh$20,925,000).


ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Codensa Residents Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enersis Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1)
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a class action was filed in Colombia against Codensa in which
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for excess charges for not applying
the tariff benefit that according to them would have applied to
them as users of the Voltage One Level and owners of the
infrastructure, as established by Resolution No. 082 of 2002,
amended by Resolution No. 097 of 2008. Regarding the proceeding
status, Codensa filed a plea against the lawsuit rejecting it
entirely. A conciliation hearing was effected between the parties,
without success. The writ of proof is pending. The estimated
amount is approximately CPs 337,626,840,000 (approximately
ThCh$75,966,039).


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by AmSurg
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN LEMAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
WILLIAM A. SANGER, MICHAEL L. SMITH, RONALD A. WILLIAMS,
CAROL J. BURT, LEONARD M. RIGGS, JR., RICHARD J. SCHNALL,
MARK V. MACTAS, JAMES D. SHELTON, AMSURG CORP., and NEW AMETHYST
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02265-CBS (D. Col., September
8, 2016), was filed over a Proposed acquisition of Envision
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. by AmSurg Corp.

Envision is a family of healthcare companies focused on delivering
high quality care to patients in their homes and in the hospital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALS: "Meraz" Suit to Recoup OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
ELVIN MERAZ, JOSE LUIS PEREZ, and JOSUE INES PEREZ, on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALS, INC. and H & V CONSTRUCTION AND
REMODELING, LLC, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00979-BP (W.D. Mo.,
September 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Exceptional Professionals, Inc. is in the construction business
and specializes in installing plaster, drywall, and insulation for
construction projects in various states, including Missouri and
Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Lui Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Weston R. Moore, Esq.
     MOORE LAW OFFICE
     110 S. Cherry Street, Suite 103
     Olathe, KS 66061
     Phone: (913) 782-7075
     Fax: (866) 896-0287
     E-mail: kslegalhelp@yahoo.com


FEI COMPANY: Hialeah Retirement System Sues Over Sale to Thermo
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. FEI
COMPANY, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC., POLPIS MERGER SUB CO.,
THOMAS F. KELLY, DONALD R. KANIA, HOMA BAHRAMI, ARIE HUIJSER,
JAN C. LOBBEZOO, JAMI K. DOVER NACHTSHEIM, JAMES T. RICHARDSON
and RICHARD H. WILLS, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01792-SI (E.D.
Ore., September 9, 2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary
duty by the Board and/or other violations of state and federal law
arising out of the sale of FEI COMPANY to Thermo Fisher Scientific
Inc.

FEI designs, manufactures and supports a broad range of high-
performance microscopy workflow solutions that provide images and
answers at the micro-, nano- and picometer scales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
     Jennifer S. Wagner
     Gary M. Berne, Esq.
     Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
     Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Fax: (503) 227-6840
     E-mail: gberne@stollberne.com
             jwagner@stollberne.com
             ndahab@stollberne.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Stephen H. Cypen, Esq.
     CYPEN & CYPEN
     777 Arthur Godfrey Road, Suite 320
     Miami Beach, FL 33140
     Phone: (305) 532-3200
     Fax: (305) 535-0050


FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company and the
Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a class action
(Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the
plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of
the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance
formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly
advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the
conversion.

Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and
violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of the
Summary Plan Description.

The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in
September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The
court ordered that the Plan be reformed.

The Company is appealing the court's decision, and the judgment
has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

As a result of this development, the Company determined that it is
probable a liability exists. The Company's reasonable estimate of
this liability is a range between $100 million and $200 million,
with no amount within that range more probable than any other
amount. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company
recorded a charge of $100 million pre-tax ($61 million after-tax)
in the third quarter of 2015. This amount has been classified as a
long-term liability. The Company will continue to vigorously
defend itself in this case. In light of the uncertainties involved
in this matter, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution
will not differ from the amount currently accrued by the Company.


FOXX TAILS: Dancers/Entertainers' Suit Assert Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOXX TAILS and Gail Rodgers,
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01477-HGD (N.D. Ala., September 8,
2016), is a collective action brought by current and former
dancers/entertainers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Foxx Tails is a business entity operating as a lounge
and night club featuring exotic dancer entertainment in Madison
County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian Clark, Esq.
     WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
     The Kress Building
     301 19th St. No.
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 314-0500
     Fax: (205) 254-1500
     E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com


GEORGE WASHINGTON: Failed to Properly Track Cadavers, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that less
than nine months after donating her grandmother's body to George
Washington University for medical research, Eileen Kostaris
received a phone call.

On the other end was Christina Puchalski, director of the George
Washington University Institute for Spirituality and Health.

There had been a "mix up," Kostaris says she was told, with some
of the cadavers in the university's possession, and they could no
longer verify their identities.

That was in February. Kostaris says her grandmother's remains,
which she expected to be returned to her as ashes, are still
missing.

The Gaithersburg woman on September 13, joined two others with
similar stories to file a class action in D.C. Superior Court.
They say George Washington University failed to properly track
bodies entrusted to it, and rushed to cremate the remains as part
of a cover-up upon discovering the potential issues with
identification.

Now donors like Kostaris can't be sure, according to the
complaint, whether the cremated remains they were given are
actually those of their relatives and not of a stranger.

Co-plaintiff Mary Louise Powell says the ashes the university
claimed were her mother's included a certificate that shows the
body was cremated in December 2015 - more than a month before a
university employee told Powell her mother's body was still being
studied.

"The university garnered the trust of the plaintiffs and other
class members by promising them that if the remains of their
deceased family members could be used for scientific and medical
purposes that, 'the body will, at all times, be treated with
respect and dignity,' and returned, after cremation, to the family
after a 'twenty-four to thirty-six month period,'" the complaint
reads. "The university failed to keep these sacred promises."

To keep track of the bodies in its possession, according to the
complaint, the university uses metal tags with identification
numbers printed on them that are meant to travel wherever the
bodies go.

But as many as seven years ago, the university started slipping on
ensuring the tags always followed the bodies, the class claims.

"Tags were removed from bodies when they were transported to
laboratories for study and tags were returned to the morgue
without tags," the complaint states. "There was no medical,
scientific or other reason to remove the tags. They were simply
removed, lost and misplaced as a result of pure negligence and
lack of oversight."

A whistleblower brought the "irregularities" in the university's
identification of the donated bodies to "high-ranking university
officials" in September 2015, but the class claims the school has
been returning unknown remains to family members for years.

The university did not tell the families about the potential
errors until January 2016, according to the complaint.

Before coming clean, however, the university "rushed" to cremate
the bodies, according to the complaint.

This was done initially without preserving a DNA sample for later
identification purposes, the class says. Powell says her mother
was one of these early, sample-lacking cases.

"The only reason to cremate the bodies before taking steps to
identify them and to withhold the fact that DNA samples had been
preserved is the apparent desire, on the part of the university,
to cover up its negligence by returning cremains, at random, to
families to whom they may not belong," the class claims.

The school started collecting pre-cremation DNA samples
thereafter, but the class says this was done sloppily too.

"Both the rushed and unlawful cremation of unidentified bodies,
and the saving of genetic material were done without first
obtaining consent or even notifying the affected families," the
complaint states.

As of September 14, morning, the university had not been served in
the case and said through a spokeswoman it is still working with
affected families.

"As we have said previously, last fall, the School of Medicine and
Health Sciences learned that the management of the willed body
donor program was not consistent with the standards that donors
and their families deserve and expect," George Washington
University spokeswoman Candace Smith said in an email. "As a
result, we ended acceptance of donor bodies and began an internal
review. There has been no intent on the part of the university to
mislead affected families. We will address this lawsuit in an
appropriate legal forum not in the news media."

The class seeks $60 million as well as additional punitive damages
for fraud, misrepresentation and negligence.

Cary J. Hansel, a Baltimore attorney who represents the class, did
not respond to a request for comment before publication.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "London" Suit Alleges Zofran(R)-Linked Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER LONDON, individually and on behalf of and as
representative for M.L. a deceased minor, and CHARLES LONDON,
individually Plaintiffs, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC and SANDOZ, INC.,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01124 (M.D.N.C., September 9, 2016) seeks
compensatory damages, equitable relief, and such other relief
deemed just and proper arising from the alleged injuries and
wrongful death of Plaintiffs' minor daughter, M.L., as a result of
Plaintiff Jennifer London's prenatal exposures to the prescription
drug Zofran(R) and/or its generic equivalent, also known as
ondansetron.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline is a subsidiary of
GlaxoSmithKline plc and is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth Grimes, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, LLP
     1211 East Morehead Street
     Charlotte, NC 28204
     Phone: (704) 333-1000
     Fax: (704) 333-6677
     E-mail: egrimes@demayolaw.com

        - and -

     Adriana Suarez Desmond, Esq.
     Steven J. Skikos, Esq.
     Adriana Suarez Desmond, Esq.
     SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH
     One Sansome St., Suite 2830
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 546-7300
     Fax: (415) 546-7301
     E-mail: sskikos@skikos.com
             adesmond@skikos.com


GRANITE CITY: Faces "Koenig" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA KOENIG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CITY FOOD & BREWERY, LTD. and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01396-AJS (W.D.
Penn., September 9, 2016), alleges that Defendant systematically
and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, by, among other things, failing to
satisfy the notice requirements of the tip credit provisions of
the FLSA and PMWA.

Defendant Granite City Food & Brewery, Ltd. owns and operates two
restaurant brands in the United States. They are Granite City Food
& Brewery and Cadillac Ranch All American Bar & Grill.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: 412-322-9243
     Fax: 412-231-0246
     E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
             jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Gray, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: 610-822-3700
     Fax: 610-822-3800
     E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
             rgray@cwg-law.com

        - and -

     Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
     KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     Two Penn Center Plaza
     1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: 215-792-6676
     Fax: 215-792-6676
     E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


GREE ELECTRIC: Four Insurance Companies File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that four insurance companies filed a class action in Los Angeles,
against a Chinese appliance-maker, claiming it sold 2.5 million
fire-prone dehumidifiers in the United States, which could cause
billions of dollars in damages.

More than 2.2 million of the dangerous appliances made by Gree
Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai are still in U.S. homes,
bearing prominent brand names including Frigidaire, GE and
Kenmore, the insurers say in the Sept. 8 lawsuit in Los Angeles
Federal Court.

Only Gree and its subsidiaries are named as defendants.

Gree built the dehumidifiers with plastic parts that could not
withstand the heat they put out, Homesite Insurance Company of the
Midwest et al. say in the lawsuit.

Gree China promised its U.S. partners, including Gree USA, that
its products met the safety standards of Underwriters
Laboratories, including UL 94, which "requires that consumer
electric products, including dehumidifiers, use plastics that have
specific burn and flame rates in order to prevent, reduce and
limit the risk of fire hazards," the complaint states.

The insurers say Gree knew its dehumidifiers would fail the
standard but that UL had no way to test them on its own.

General Electric forced Gree China to upgrade the dehumidifiers
bearing the GE brand in 2011, but Gree did not make the changes to
the ones made for other brands and in 2012 Gree rejected safety
concerns raised by another partner, the insurers say.

"Gree China, Gree Hong Kong, Gree USA and [US partner] MJC
continued to sell their defective and unreasonably dangerous
dehumidifiers until September of 2013, when the dehumidifiers were
recalled pursuant to a voluntary recall program" with the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, the insurers say.

Only that year and the next, under pressure from the CPSC, did
Gree finally recall 2.5 million humidifiers. Even so, in March
this year, the commission hit the three Gree companies with a
record-setting $15.45 million civil penalty.

Despite the recalls, the insurers say, only 240,000 of the
dangerous machines had been returned as of May 2015.

"Out of the 2,500,000 dehumidifiers with these common defects,
approximately 2,260,000 of these defective dehumidifiers
manufactured by Gree China remain in U.S. homes and residences,
posing a serious risk to the life and property of US homeowners,"
the class action states.

In addition to fires, the appliances can cause smoke damage.
Hundreds of insurance companies could be on the hook to thousands
of policyholders, the insurers say. Citing data from the CPSC,
they say insurance claims could cost an average of $37,000.

Suing for themselves and other underwriters, the insurers say Gree
"knew or should have known that the dehumidifiers had defects that
could cause catastrophic property damage, personal injury and/or
death."

Mark C. Zebrowski -- mzebrowski@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster
in San Diego, who has represented Gree in other litigation over
the dehumidifiers, declined to comment because he had not yet
discussed the class action with company officials.

A representative of Gree USA did not return a call about the
lawsuit on September 12.

The insurers seek subrogation rights to take over and enforce
their injured policyholders' claims against the Gree defendants.
The lawsuit identifies individual policyholders from Georgia,
Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota, each of whom suffered at least
$2,000 in property damages from burning dehumidifiers.

The insurers are represented by Nathan Dooley with of Cozen
O'Connor, which has "the largest subrogation practice in the
United States," according to the 36-page complaint. Neither he nor
co-counsel at the firm could be reached for comment late on
September 12.

The insurers seek class certification, restitution, recalls and
replacements, and punitive damages for negligence, product
liability, deceptive trade and unfair competition.


H&R BLOCK: Compliance Fee Litigation Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend the so-called Compliance Fee Litigation.

On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri styled
Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case #
1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax
clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to
represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

"We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The
court denied the motion. We filed an appeal," the Company said.

"On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion on remand.

"We filed an additional appeal. On March 8, 2016, the appellate
court affirmed the decision of the trial court. We filed an
application for transfer of the appeal in the Supreme Court of
Missouri, which was denied. We have not concluded that a loss
related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss
contingency related to this matter," the Company said.


H&R BLOCK: 8th Cir. Appeal in "Perras" Case Underway
----------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the plaintiff's appeal
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending.

On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee
charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.
The plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons
nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In
June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining
2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015.

In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment,
along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the
state of California.

"We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all
claims. On April 29, 2016, the court granted our motion for
summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification as moot. The plaintiff filed an appeal
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending,"
the Company said.

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter."

                           *     *     *

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 7, 2016,
entered a briefing schedule, which sets the following:

     -- Appendix due on July 18, 2016.

     -- Brief of Appellant Ronald Perras due July 18, 2016.

     -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
        issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
        appellant.

     -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date
        the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing
        the appellee brief.


HARVEST NATURAL: Wins Dismissal of "Phillips" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016,
that the court has granted Company's motion to dismiss Phillips
case.

Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its
executive officers have been subject to a number of class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas (the "Court"), which lawsuits were consolidated
into John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes, originally filed with the Court on
March 22, 2013 (the "Phillips Case"). The complaints in the
Phillips Case alleged that the Company and its executive officers
made certain false or misleading public statements and demanded
that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action
plaintiffs based on stock price declines.

On August 25, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Phillips Case and entered a final judgment dismissing
the Phillips Case in its entirety. The class action plaintiffs
have 30 days to appeal the dismissal.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Claims of 2 Individuals Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that in the
case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, only the claims of the
two individual named plaintiffs remain pending in the district
court.

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action
filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that certain
technical support employees allegedly involved in installing,
maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware
for HP Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA.
The plaintiff has also alleged that HP Inc. violated California
law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these
employees as exempt.

On February 13, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, plaintiff filed a
motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical
Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado
that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime
under state law.

On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant
and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the
conditionally certified FLSA collective action. The court denied
plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification on March 29,
2016.

On April 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that
decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth
Circuit, which was denied. On July 13, 2016, the court granted
HP's motion to decertify the FLSA class that had been
conditionally certified on February 13, 2014.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Suit Over "Smart Install" Software
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Diego claims Hewlett Packard advertises printers as having
"Smart Install" software, though the feature is disabled.


HOMEAWAY: Faces Housing Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a HomeAway renter told a
black customer that he did not rent to her "kind," she says in a
housing discrimination class action, in Austin, Texas Federal
Court.


HP INC: Case Management Conference in "Forsyth" Set for Nov. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
HP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company is facing a class
action lawsuit, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August
18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide
collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S.
residents employed by defendants who had their employment
terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or
after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older.
Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.

                           *     *     *

On August 19, the Court entered an Initial Case Management
Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines:

     Case Management Statement due by 11/9/2016.

     Case Management Conference set for 11/16/2016 10:00 a.m.
         at the US District Court, 280 S. First St.,
         San Jose, CA 95113 in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor.

The order was signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins.

The Plaintiffs are represented by Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq., at
Andrus Anderson LLP.


HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
HP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2016, that an appellate court has heard oral
argument in a class action appeal in the case, Cement & Concrete
Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company,
et al.

The putative securities class action was filed on August 3, 2012
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from November 13,
2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's
Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and
misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the
SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized
his continued employment with HP.

On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013.

On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening
brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the
plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. The
appellate court heard oral argument on July 7, 2016.


INFUSION BRANDS: "Flint" Class Action Not Yet Served
----------------------------------------------------
As Seen On TV, Inc said in its Form 10-KT Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
transition period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, that
on April 29, 2016, the Company received notice (but not official
service) that Infusion Brands, Inc., its discontinued subsidiary,
may be named as a defendant in Flint v. Infusion Brands, Inc., et
al, a purported class action case filed but not yet served in
federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The suit
alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated plaintiffs
were damaged when Infusion Brands, Inc. ceased to sell replacement
parts and accessories for a former product, the DualTools PS7000,
a polisher/sander.  Lowe's, Inc. has also sought indemnification
from Infusion Brands, Inc. for its costs related to the action.
Infusion Brands, Inc., as a discontinued subsidiary, has no assets
and no ability to pay any judgment that may be rendered.

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


INSULET CORPORATION: ATRS et al. Balk at Bid to Dismiss Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet
Corporation et al., 1:15-cv-12345 (D. Mass.), Plaintiffs Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System, City of Bristol Pension Fund, and City
of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System filed on Sept. 16 a
Memorandum in Opposition regarding the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.

Insulet Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6,
2016, that between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class
action lawsuits were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District
Court, Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual
current and former executives of the Company. Two suits
subsequently were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, which remains
outstanding, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Due in part
to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company currently
cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of loss, in
connection with this matter.


INTEGRITY REALTY: Faces "Flaesgarten" Suit in Ohio District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER FLAESGARTEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. INTEGRITY REALTY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02253-DCN, was filed on September 9,
2016 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

INTEGRITY REALTY GROUP, LLC -- http://www.integrityrealty.com.ph/
-- provides apartment homes in Cleveland and Northeast Ohio
markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     4580 Stephen Circle, NW, Suite 201
     Canton, OH 44718
     Phone: (330) 470-4428
     Fax:(330)754-1430


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Ex-Employee Files Action Over Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that ITT
Educational Services shut down its 137 campuses, stranding 35,000
students just before the fall term, it was hit with a civil
lawsuit from an employee who says it ignored her complaints about
a violent student who sexually assaulted and shot her -- and it
fired her on her first day back at work.
ITT shut down all of its campuses on Sept. 6 after the U.S.
Department of Education barred it from accepting students who
receive federal aid.

In its Aug. 25 order, the Department of Education gave the chain
college 30 days to post a $152 million surety bond to cover
tuition refunds and other liabilities.

ITT shares dropped by more than one-third, and on Sept. 6 the
chain announced it was closing all of its schools immediately.

Also that day, former ITT "enrollment representative" Kristen
Trease sued the company in Phoenix Federal Court, seeking punitive
damages for harassment and retaliation.  She says ITT Technical
Institute "completely and utterly ignor(ed)" her complaints of
sexual harassment "at the hands of a student with a known,
violent, sexual criminal history."

Carlos Webb enrolled at the Phoenix campus in 2011, and Trease was
his representative. Webb already had been convicted in New Mexico
of rape, kidnapping and burglary, and wore an ankle monitor at the
time of his enrollment, Trease says in the lawsuit.

Soon after Webb was admitted, he made sexual advances to her and
asked her out on dates, and though she complained to supervisors
and told them she was scared of Webb, due to his advances and his
criminal history, ITT Tech "took no steps to investigate her
complaints nor cease Mr. Webb's unwelcomed conduct of a sexual
nature," the lawsuit states.

Webb removed his ankle monitor and was sent back to prison, but
ITT Tech readmitted him in 2012, Trease says. Again assigned to
help Webb, he told her to get him an identification badge for him,
but to "keep it and rub it all over her chest," she says.

She complained to her supervisors again, but no one investigated
because they didn't want to lose Webb's tuition, Trease says.

Trease's attorney Ty Taber told Courthouse News that ITT Tech
refused to act despite a string of complaints against Webb.

"Nothing is done," Taber said. "The multiple opportunities that
ITT and similarly situated employers have to do something and they
don't do anything. . . .  I guess that's what happens when you
have a for-profit business. The emphasis is on profit."

On April 24, 2012, as Trease tried to leave campus at 8 p.m., Webb
approached her and said he needed to talk. When she declined, Webb
told her, "I'm going to do something crazy; go to your car."

As she backed away from him, Webb held a gun to her neck, said,
"You knew I liked you; you should have been with me," then forced
her across the street and sexually assaulted her.

A motorcyclist drove by, heard Trease's cries for help and shined
a light toward her. She broke free from Webb, and he shot her
through the chest.

Another of Trease's attorneys, Burr Shields, described her as a
"trouper."

"She was shot right through her chest, and her collarbone was
broken during the assault as well, and that still needs surgery,"
Shields said.

Taber added: "It's been an unbelievable nightmare for her. You
don't expect to have this happen. There is no way to prepare or
deal. This case gives me the shivers."

After surgery, Trease spent several days in a coma. She returned
to work in October 2012 after recovering from the shooting, and
was fired on her first day back.

"She received an email the day of her return to work, and was told
it was sent to her by mistake," Shields said. "ITT denied it was
going to fire her, but later that same day did."

Webb was convicted in 2014 of attempted second-degree murder,
kidnapping and two counts of aggravated assault.

Trease seeks damages for lost income, and compensatory and
punitive damages for sexual harassment, retaliation and disability
discrimination.

"She did her best to mitigate her economic loss after being fired
on the heels of all this, and she's inspirational," Shields said.
"She's been entitled to justice for a long time. ... Now it's time
for her to sit in front of a jury and get her remedy."

Trease filed a similar lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court
in 2012, but it was dismissed by a judge who found workers'
compensation an appropriate remedy.

A spokeswoman from ITT Tech could not be reached for contact.

Attorneys Shields and Taber are with Aiken Schenk Hawkins &
Ricciardi, in Phoenix.

Since ITT shut down a week ago, former employees have filed
federal class actions in Delaware, Illinois and Indiana, under the
WARN Act, for being laid off without 60 days notice.

The chain school had about 8,000 employees across the country when
it folded.

When it shut down it blamed the closure on the actions of the
Department of Education. However, the profit-seeking chain had
been sued repeatedly for its recruiting practices, including
numerous class actions from students over the years; lawsuits from
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2014 and the SEC in
2015; and lawsuits from the states of Massachusetts and
California. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia issued
civil investigative demands against ITT in 2014 under consumer
protection laws.

The sudden closure of ITT, a week or two before the fall term
starts, has left its 35,000 students scrambling to find new
schools. Private, profit-seeking schools have grown tremendously
in recent years, with more than 1.5 million students last year,
according to federal data.

Another large chain, Corinthian Colleges, also closed after
multiple class actions from students and faced enforcement
actions. The students and the federal government essentially
accused the chains of using federal student aid as a cash cow,
and/or misrepresenting the quality of the education they offered,
and graduates' employment rates. Corinthian Colleges had 72,000
students when it went bankrupt.

The U.S. Department of Education in June recommended shutting down
the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, the
largest national accreditor for profit-seeking colleges. ACICS
oversees 243 educational institutions, many of them profit-
seeking, that enroll more than 800,000 students, and which
received $4.76 billion in federal student aid in 2015, according
to the Kent State University publication Inside Higher Ed.

ACICS found "few if any quality issues" at Corinthian Colleges 59
campuses virtually until the chain collapsed in 2014, despite
numerous class actions and state and federal investigations,
according to Inside Higher Ed.

The Department of Education gave its recommendation on ACICS in
June to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality
and Integrity (NACIQI) in June, which has 90 days to rule on the
recommendation and return it to the Department of Education.

If the DOE decides to de-accredit the accreditor, and survives
what is sure to be a flurry of lawsuits, schools will have 18
months to find a new accreditor.

The board member who introduced the motion to kill ACICS at the
NACIQI meeting in June said ACICS had "serious, substantive
problems with its oversight, which allowed the 'systemic
corruption' of some of its member institutions," according to
Inside Higher Ed.

Profit-seeking chain colleges grew tremendously after deregulation
led by former Republican U.S. Speaker of the House Tom DeLay. The
only three members who opposed the motion to terminate ACICS at
the NACIQI's June meeting were appointed by congressional
Republicans.


J. C. PENNEY: Marcus Consolidated Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the Marcus consolidated class action securities
litigation.

The Company said, "The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth
H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The
consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper."

"Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12,
2015.

"Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 25,
2016, and defendants submitted a response to the motion on April
15, 2016. The motion was heard by the court on June 29, 2016.

"Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other
than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through
September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in
the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, and seeks similar relief. On
June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."


J. C. PENNEY: $4.5MM Accord in ERISA Action Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the $4.5 million
settlement in an ERISA class action litigation remains subject to
court approval.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1,
2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and
others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during
this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false
and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a
constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan,
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015. The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to
court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available $4.5
million to settle class members' claims.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends "Tschudy" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the Tschudy employment class action litigation.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present.  After the court granted JCP's motion to
transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a
separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits
seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company
opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in
California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue.

On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the
Company, the California court decertified the class on December 9,
2015. On March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion
for summary judgment, and on May 4, 2016, entered judgment for JCP
on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinois court denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the
filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the
Company has answered.

On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for
class certification, which the Illinois court granted on March 8,
2016.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Settlement in Pricing Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the company is awaiting
the court's decision to approve the settlement in the Pricing
Class Action Litigation.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v.
J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and
related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale
prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit
seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for
certification of a class consisting of all people who, between
November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in
California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or
accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the
stated original or regular price (excluding those who only
received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not
received a refund or credit for their purchases.

"The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, and in accordance with the term of the settlement, we
have established a $50 million reserve to settle class members'
claims. The court has granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. A final approval hearing was held on August 25, 2016
and the parties are awaiting the court's decision," the Company
said.


JOY GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Komatsu
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE MCGREGOR, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOY GLOBAL, INC., EDWARD L. DOHENY II,
STEVEN L. GERARD, MARK J. GLIEBE, JOHN T. GREMP, JOHN NILS HANSON,
GALE E. KLAPPA, RICHARD B. LOYND, P. ERIC SIEGERT, JAMES H. TATE,
KOMATSU AMERICA CORP., KOMATSU LTD., and PINE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1213 (E.D. Wis., September 8, 2016),
was filed over a proposed transaction under which Joy Global, Inc.
will be acquired by Komatsu America Corp. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Pine Solutions, Inc.

Through its market-leading businesses, Joy Global Surface Mining
and Joy Global Underground Mining, Joy Global manufactures and
markets original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for
both the above-ground and underground mining industries and
certain industrial applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

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


JUST SALAD: Faces "Camara" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
FAMOUDOU CAMARA, and PAULINO J. ZAPOTITLAN on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. JUST SALAD 600 THIRD
LLC d/b/a Just Salad Murray Hill; JUST SALAD GP LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Fashion District; JUST SALAD PARTNERS LLC d/b/a Just Salad
Financial District; JUST SALAD 315 PAS LLC d/b/a Just Salad 315
Park Ave South; JUST SALAD 320 PARK AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park
Avenue; JUST SALAD 134 37TH ST. LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion
District; JUST SALAD 30 ROCK LLC d/b/a Just Salad 30 Rock; JUST
SALAD 706 6TH AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Chelsea; JUST SALAD WWP LLC
d/b/a Just Salad World Wide Plaza; JUST SALAD 663 LEX LLC d/b/a
Just Salad Lexington; JUST SALAD PARK SLOPE LLC d/b/a Just Salad
Park Slope; JUST SALAD 8TH ST LLC d/b/a Just Salad 8th Street;
JUST SALAD 1471 3RD AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper East Side; JUST
SALAD 1ST AVENUE LLC d/b/a Just Salad1st Avenue and 70th; JUST
SALAD HUDSON SQUARE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Hudson Square; JUST SALAD
STATE STREET LLC d/b/a Just Salad Downtown Brooklyn; JUST SALAD
HERALD SQUARE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Macy's Herald Square; JUST
SALAD 90 BROAD STREET LLC d/b/a Just Salad 90 Broad Street; JUST
SALAD 2056 BROADWAY LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper West Side; JUST
SALAD 140 8TH AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad 140 8th Avenue; JUST SALAD
233 BROADWAY LLC d/b/a Just Salad 233 Broadway; JUST SALAD
WOODBURY LLC d/b/a Just Salad Woodbury; JUST SALAD 291 7TH AVENUE
LLC d/b/a Just Salad FIT; and NICHOLAS F. KENNER, ROBERT CRESPI,
and LAURA PENSIERO, Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-07078 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 10, 2016), was filed under the Federal Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant Corporations are all members of JUST SALAD, a
"healthy fast food" chain store that "focuses on organically-
grown, locally-sourced and nutritionally-balanced recipes, all
curated by a registered dietitian."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement
reached in the securities class action litigation against the
Company remains subject to approval.

The Company said, "On December 18, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit (captioned Li v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
5:15-cv-05841-EJD) was filed against us in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, or the
Class Action Court, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws by Martin Shkreli, our former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer."

"On December 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us in the Class Action Court (captioned Sciabacucchi v.
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 3:15-cv-05992-CRB),
similarly alleging violations of the federal securities laws by
Mr. Shkreli.

"On December 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us in the Class Action Court (captioned Isensee v.
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-06331-EJD)
also alleging violation of the federal securities laws by Mr.
Shkreli.

"On April 28, 2016, the Class Action Court consolidated the cases,
which we refer to collectively as the Securities Class Action
Litigation, and appointed certain plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs.
The lead plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action Litigation were
seeking damages of $20.0 million on behalf of all the affected
members of the class represented in the Securities Class Action
Litigation, or the Securities Class Action Members.

"On June 16, 2016, a settlement stipulation, or the Securities
Class Action Settlement, was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
Subject to the approval of the Class Action Court, the Securities
Class Action Settlement required us to issue 300,000 shares of
common stock and submit a payment of $250,000 the Securities Class
Action Members and advance insurance proceeds of $1.25 million to
the Securities Class Action Members.

"We refer to the consideration owed to the Securities Class Action
Members under the Securities Class Action Settlement as the
Securities Class Action Settlement Consideration.  Subject to the
final approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement, any
Securities Class Action Member is entitled to share in the
Securities Class Action Settlement Consideration.  The Securities
Class Action Settlement provides for releases and related
injunctions to be granted for the benefit of, among others, us,
Ronald Martell, Herb Cross and all of our past, present and future
directors, officers and employees, excluding Mr. Shkreli.

"Alternatively, Securities Class Action Members may exclude
themselves from the Securities Class Action Settlement and are
thereby not bound by the terms of the Securities Class Action
Settlement nor entitled to receive any amount of the Securities
Class Acton Settlement Consideration.  Such individuals remain
free to assert claims against us and such claims were subordinated
to the level of our common stock and otherwise remain subject to
our objection.  Our agreement to the Securities Class Action
Settlement was not in any way an admission of our wrongdoing or
liability."


KC JEWELRY: Inflates Weight of Small Diamonds, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that KC Jewelry and its owner-
operators Rouben Youssian and Ramin Yosian inflate the weight of
small diamonds they sell to co-defendant Modern Jewelry and other
jewelers, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.


LG CORP: Faces "A. Frost" No-Poaching Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Silicon Valley may be the world's center for technological
advancement, but another lawsuit over no-poaching agreements
indicates that employees feel the industry may be behind the times
where they're concerned.

An LG sales manager known in the class action as "A. Frost" sued
his employer and its competitor Samsung in San Jose, Calif.
Federal Court this past week, accusing the two companies of
agreeing not to not hire each others' workers with an eye toward
fixing employee wages at an artificially low level.

"Defendants entered into, implemented, and policed the agreement
with the knowledge of the overall conspiracy, and did so with the
intent and effect of suppressing mobility and information sharing
between and among employees of the companies, and thereby fixing
the compensation of the employees of participating companies at
artificially low levels," Frost says in the complaint.

LG and Samsung are both headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, and
have extensive offices in Northern California, where they compete
with other Silicon Valley industry heavyweights like Apple and
Google in various technology markets including smartphones,
computers, tablets and appliances like televisions, dishwashers
and refrigerators.

Because of the similarity of the two companies, they become the
most likely employment alternative for a worker working at either
company, Frost said -- meaning the conspiracy not only injured
Frost but all of the companies' employees.

"Competition and mobility would allow the workforces each to
demand -- and collectively receive -- higher wages, benefits and
other compensation, either in exchange for switching employers or
for staying with the current employer," Frost said in the
complaint.

Frost says he learned of the conspiracy in October 2013, when he
was contacted by a recruiting officer about a job opening at
Samsung. Soon after making Frost aware of the opening, the
recruiting officer recanted, citing the no-poaching agreement.

The wage-fixing scheme began in 2005 and was known through the
upper echelons of the corporate structure in both companies, which
sought to keep the agreement secret from the United States
workforce, Frost says.

While Frost is the only plaintiff presently, the complaint
estimates tens of thousands of employees were affected by the
scheme.

Silicon Valley companies have shown a propensity to engage in no-
poaching, wage-fixing agreements.

The U.S. Department of Justice first took antitrust action against
industry titans in 2010, when it filed a complaint accusing Apple,
Google, Adobe, Intel, Intuit and Pixar of violating the Sherman
Act by agreeing not to "cold-call" each other's employees.

The department and the accused companies quickly settled, agreeing
in principle to stipulations that forbade the no-cold-call
agreements and wider prohibitions against meddling in the
industry's labor market. No compensation was tied to the
settlement, but workers brought a civil case against the
aforementioned companies and the ensuing settlement eventually
amounted to approximately $435 million to be distributed to the
affected employees.

The lawsuit focused on the network of connections surrounding
former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who is widely perceived as being the
driving force behind the wage-suppression scheme.

Jobs was also the CEO of Pixar when it entered into a similar
wage-suppression scheme involving a slew of major movie studios
aimed at keeping its workforce salaries stagnant, according to a
2014 lawsuit filed in Federal Court.

In that case, Robert Nitsch, who was a senior character effects
artist for DreamWorks and a clothes and hair technical director at
Sony Pictures Imageworks, says animation and special effects
studios -- including Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and
Lucasfilm, Sony Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers --
conspired to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for
animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical
workers.

Blue Sky Studios recently agreed to a settlement in the case. Sony
has also gotten preliminary approval for a settlement with the
class, which Nitsch says includes about 10,000 people.

Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when the late Jobs bought
Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in 1986
and created Pixar.

A Samsung representative said the company will not comment on the
case. LG did not return a request for comment as of press time.

Frost is suing for violations of the Sherman Act and the
California companion Cartwright Act and unfair competition. He
seeks treble damages, restitution and disgorgement.

The case is A. FROST, Plaintiff, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. LG CORPORATION; LG ELECTRONICS INC.; LG
ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.; LG DISPLAY AMERICA
INC.; SAMSUNG GROUP; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-05206 (N.D. Cal., September 9, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
     Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
     Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
     JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
     555 Montgomery, Suite 1200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 500-6800
     Fax: (415) 395-9940
     Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
            mweiler@saverilawfirm.com
            kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com

        - and -

     Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
     GROSS & KLEIN LLP
     The Embarcadero
     9 Pier, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 671-4628
     Fax: (415) 480-6688
     Email: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com

        - and -

     Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
     Michael J. Kane, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: ecramer@bm.net
            mkane@bm.net

        - and -

     Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
     HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C
     310 Clifton Avenue
     Minneapolis, MN 55403
     Phone: 612-338-4605
     Fax: 612-338-4692
     Email: veasades@heinsmills.com

        - and -

     John Radice, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Phone: (646) 245-8502
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Appeal of Case Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit to the Supreme
Court of the state of Delaware.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs Hallandale Beach Police Officers and
Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund and Laborers' District
Council Industry Pension Fund filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery a derivative lawsuit on behalf of lululemon against
certain current and former directors of lululemon, captioned
Laborers' District Council Industry Pension Fund v. Bensoussan, et
al., C.A. No. 11293-CB. Plaintiffs claim that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to lululemon by
allegedly failing to investigate certain trades of lululemon stock
owned by Dennis J. Wilson in 2013. Plaintiffs also claim that Mr.
Wilson breached his fiduciary duties by making his broker aware of
certain non-public, material events prior to executing sales of
lululemon stock on Mr. Wilson's behalf.

On June 14, 2016 the Court dismissed the action for failure to
adequately plead that demand on the board was excused and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the
state of Delaware.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends Gathmann-Landini Action
----------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that certain current and
former hourly employees of the Company filed on October 9, 2015, a
class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled
Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December
2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay
all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs
are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends
to vigorously defend this matter.

                           *     *     *

In August, Lululemon USA filed a motion to dismiss an Amended
Complaint, and the Plaintiffs filed their Opposition.

The Hon. Joan M Azrack presides over the case.

The Defendants are represented by Garrett David Kennedy --
garrett.kennedy@dlapiper.com -- Daniel Turinsky --
daniel.turinsky@dlapiper.com -- Katharine J. Liao --
katharine.liao@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP.


MAC ALTAMONTE: "Neusch" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Neusch, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. MAC ALTAMONTE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-01583-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla., September 9,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and regular wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant has owned and operated a donut shop known as Dunkin'
Donuts within the Middle District of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL
     Phone: (954) 617-6017
     Fax: (954) 617-6018


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that California
court has taken a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
litigation under submission.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The
complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on
allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the
Saratoga litigation.  On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California
granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff.

On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual
defendants each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the
motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took
the matter under submission.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Ontario Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that pretrial proceedings
are underway in a class action lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court
of Justice.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads.

On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but
denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive
damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Has Deals to Settle 4,300 INFUSE Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the Company estimates
law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants have asserted
or intend to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in
the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft
product.  As of September 1, 2016, the Company has reached
agreements to settle approximately 4,300 of these claims, and
certain of the remaining claims are expected to proceed to trial
beginning in fiscal year 2017.


MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 6,200 Pelvic Mesh Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that as of September 1,
2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately
6,200 of claims related to Pelvic mesh products.

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently
involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against
manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries
resulting from the implantation of those products. Two
subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of
the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The
litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and
cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S.
Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims.

In July 2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the
Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these
claims. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the
Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if
any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to
dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to
Bard's obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company
estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants
have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured
by Covidien's subsidiaries.

As of September 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to
settle approximately 6,200 of these claims. The Company's accrued
expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain
litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other liabilities
on the consolidated balance sheets as discussed above.


MEDTRONIC PLC: W.Va. Pipe Trades and Phil Pace Appeal Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that Plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit by West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace have
appealed the dismissal of the cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July
3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding
the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8,
2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in
September, 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs
alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3,
2011.

On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Minnesota Supreme Court Decision Expected in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that a decision from the
Minnesota Supreme Court in the class action lawsuit related to the
Covidien acquisition is expected in calendar year 2017.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss.

On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued
its opinion.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court
is expected in calendar year 2017.


MENASHE RESTAURANT: Faces "Gomez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Gomez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Menashe Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Ricky's
Cafe and Ursula Besdine Ponce, in her individual and professional
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05034 (E.D.N.Y., September
11, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

Menashe Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant/cafe
named "Ricky's Cafe" that serves food and drinks to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MENTOR GRAPHICS: Class Not Certified in "Haroutunian" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Mentor Graphics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a class has not
been certified in the Haroutunian securities class action.

The Company said, "On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class
action lawsuit, Haroutunian v. Mentor Graphics, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company
and three executive officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges that the company and
certain of our officers made material misstatements and omissions
in press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission filings and
analyst conference calls concerning the company's business
prospects and financial projections that artificially inflated the
price of the company's stock."

"The lead plaintiff has been appointed and plaintiff's amended
complaint was filed with the court on August 10, 2016. A class of
plaintiffs has not been certified by the court."


MICHIGAN: Schools Fail to Provide Basic Literacy Tools, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcie Shields, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal class action claims the state of Michigan is violating
the constitutional rights of students in Detroit's public schools
by failing to provide them with adequate instruction or tools to
acquire basic literacy.

In a complaint filed on September 13, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Michigan, parents and students of the
city's public school system say that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and
the state's board of education have shown a complete lack of
interest in Detroit's five lowest performing schools and the black
children from low-income families who have to attend them.

This disinterest and the resulting lack of investment in the
troubled schools is denying young black students "the most basic
building block of education," the complaint says.

The plaintiffs claim that through policy and in practice, Michigan
persistently and deliberately deprives disadvantaged black
students of a "fighting chance" to succeed, by failing to provide
them with adequate, up-to-date instructional materials,
appropriately-trained teaching staff, and safe school buildings.

The 136-page complaint cites student achievement data compiled by
the state, and separately, by the nonprofit Excellent Schools
Detroit, that show literacy proficiency rates in Detroit's worst
performing schools hovers near zero in nearly all subject area.

Michigan's statewide accountability system rates these five
schools one, two, four, and six, the complaint says, while
Excellent Schools Detroit has assigned the schools represented in
the lawsuit grades "F" and "D."

In one of the five schools, the plaintiffs claim, third-graders
have a proficiency score of 4.2% on Michigan's 2015-16 English
assessment test, compared with 46.0% of third-graders statewide.

In the same school, the complaint alleges, the only books third-
graders had access to were picture books -- until their teacher
bought other books with money out of her own pocket -- halfway
through the school year, the complaint says.

Similarly, at a charter school within the district, only 9.5% of
third-grade students scored proficient in English, as compared to
46.0% of third-graders statewide, the complaint adds.

The plaintiffs say that in addition to being denied proper
instructional materials, students are also forced to try to learn
in grossly over-crowded classrooms due to the low-performing
schools having an insufficient number of teachers.

In some cases, they say, these classes are left in the hands of
people who do not have the minimum state requirements to teach --
including an eighth-grader who was pressed into teaching seventh
and eighth grade math classes for a month because no adult teacher
was available.

Photographs incorporated into the complaint show buckets placed in
school hallways to catch rainwater, evidence of rodent and insect
infestations, and non-functioning drinking fountains, and toilets
sealed up with plastic trash bags.

According to the complaint, many school restrooms lack soap and
toilet paper.

The dire conditions described in the complaint include classrooms
and school buildings that are inadequately heated during the
winter and are too hot in the spring and early fall because of
malfunctioning air conditioning.

In addition, the plaintiffs say, the playground of one elementary
school is so poorly maintained and secured that the children who
are forced use it routinely injure themselves and tear their
clothing on jagged edges on the grounds, and play on grounds
strewn with spent bullets, used condoms and sex toys, and dead
vermin.

At a news conference on September 14, plaintiff attorney Mark
Rosenbaum said, "For the last 15 years, the state has run the
Detroit schools, has run them into the ground."

"Literacy," Rosenbaum says, "is the cornerstone of all education;
it is the cornerstone of our democracy. Absent literacy, a child
has no way to obtain knowledge, communicate with the world, or
participate in the institutions and activities of citizenship."

Co-counsel Kathryn Eidman said attorneys are focusing on Detroit
because it has the lowest proficiency rates of any large urban
school district in the U.S.

The state took over management of the Detroit Public Schools, now
official

Since 2009, a series of emergency managers, first appointed by
former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and then, by Gov. Snyder, have
overseen the day-to-day operation of the district.

Despite the oversight, however, the school district's financial
problems have worsened, prompting state lawmakers to pass a
sweeping $617 million package in June intended to once again prop
the school system up and fund a series of reforms.

The plaintiffs want the state to take the additional step of
monitoring "conditions that deny access to literacy," and provide
appropriate intervention and support.

John Austin, president of the Michigan Department of Education,
told the Detroit Free Press he believes that board should not have
been named as a defendant in the case because it has repeatedly
sought increased education funding from the governor and the state
Legislature.

The board, Austin explained, has no power to approve such funding.

"It's the Legislature that holds the purse strings, and the
governor who proposes budgets," he said.

A spokesman for Gov. Snyder declined to comment on the lawsuit, as
did Chrystal Wilson, spokeswoman for the Detroit Public Schools
Community District.

In addition to Rosenbaum and Eidman and their legal team from the
Los Angeles-based Public Counsel, the plaintiffs are represented
by Michael Kelley, of Sidley Austin LLP in Los Angeles; Jennifer
Wheeler, of Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago; Bruce Miller, of Miller
Cohen PLC in Detroit; Evan Caminker, of the University of Michigan
Law School; and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of
California, Irvine School of Law.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: "Litwin" Suit Files Suit Over Randstad Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD LITWIN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC., TIMOTHY T. YATES,
EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., JOHN GAULDING, JAMES P. MCVEIGH,
GILLIAN MUNSON, JEFFREY F. RAYPORT, and ROBERTO TUNIOLI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11844 (D. Mass., September 9, 2016),
arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Monster will
be acquired by Randstad Holding NV, through its U.S.-based
subsidiary Randstad North America, Inc. and Parent's wholly-owned
subsidiary Merlin Global Acquisition, Inc.

MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC., a Delaware corporation, is a global online
employment solutions company that provides job seeking, career
management, recruitment and talent management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


MORELIA MEXICAN: Faces "Brens" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
DIONISIO BRENS and GREGORIO OLMOS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORELIA MEXICAN REST.
INC. (d/b/a MADE IN MEXICO), ISMAEL GARCIA, and WILLIAM SEGURA
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07073 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2016),
was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the N.Y. Labor Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commission of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at
3950 10th Avenue, New York, New York 10034 under the name Made in
Mexico.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Next Status Conference Set for October 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the next
status conference with the Court in the MaxxForce Engine EGR
Warranty Litigation is set for October 28, 2016.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc.,
and Harbour International Trucks (collectively, "Navistar") in
Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C
Action"). Subsequently, six additional, similar putative class
action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C
Action, the "Canadian Actions").

From June 13-17, 2016, the court conducted a certification hearing
in the N&C Action. There are no court dates scheduled in any of
the other Canadian Actions at this time.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4
Action"). Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts,
including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the
Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the
District of Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with
the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions
name both NIC and Navistar, Inc. The U.S. Actions allege matters
substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically,
the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR
Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in
Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar
or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions
allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and
that the Company and Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct
the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on
theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair
competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class
Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive
damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan
B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois all of the then-pending U.S. Actions, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
pending in various federal district courts.

On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S.
Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted.
The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S.
Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before
Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel
also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various
federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For
putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's
original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel
similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S. Actions.

At the request of the various law firms representing the
plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall
entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel
and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015,
lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to
the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The
Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. On
May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order
setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The next status conference with the Court is set for
October 28, 2016.

"Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification
of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future
consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows," the Company said.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Court
scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for October 25, 2016, on the
settlement in the shareholder litigation.

The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action
complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3,
2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed
in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010
and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in
April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our
common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1,
2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J.
Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer as defendants."

"These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain
similar factual allegations which include, among other things,
that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing
materially false and misleading statements concerning our
financial condition and future business prospects and that we
misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") concerning the timing and
likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010
EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief.

"In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating
all 10b-5 Cases before one judge sitting in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and in July 2013, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in October
2013. The Consolidated Amended Complaint enlarged the proposed
class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named
fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants.

"On December 17, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 22, 2014, the Court
granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denied the lead
plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff
leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by August
22, 2014.

"On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which narrowed the claims in two ways. First, the
plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the
defendants. The Second Amended Complaint brought claims against
only Navistar, Dan Ustian, Andrew J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and
Eric Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period.
In the prior complaint, the class period began on June 9, 2009. In
the Second Amended Complaint, it begins on March 10, 2010.
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on September 23, 2014.

"In November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech
as a defendant. On July 10, 2015, the Court issued its Opinion and
Order on our Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The
Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
Specifically, the Court (i) dismissed all of plaintiff's claims
against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and Jack Allen and (ii)
dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against Daniel C. Ustian, the
only remaining defendant, except for claims regarding two of Mr.
Ustian's statements. Further, all of the dismissed claims were
dismissed with prejudice except for claims based on statements
made subsequent to the lead plaintiff's last purchase of the
Company's stock (the "Post-Purchase Claims"). The Court determined
the lead plaintiff lacked standing to assert the Post-Purchase
Claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

"At a December 1, 2015 status conference, the parties reported
that a settlement in principle had been reached, subject to, among
other things, final documentation, confirmatory discovery and
Court approval, and the Court filed a minute entry reflecting such
report. On May 25, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, as well as the class notice to be sent
in connection with the settlement. The Court scheduled the Final
Approval Hearing for October 25, 2016."


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Savings Plan Beneficiaries File Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFTON W. MARSHALL, THOMAS W. HALL, MARIA E. MIDKIFF, MANUEL A.
GONZALEZ, RICKY L. HENDRICKSON, PHILLIP B. BROOKS, AND HAROLD
HYLTON, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons on behalf of the Northrop Grumman
Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION,
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, NORTHROP
GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, DENISE PEPPARD,
IAN ZISKIN, MICHAEL HARDESTY, KENNETH L. BEDINGFIELD, KENNETH N.
HEINTZ, TALHA A. ZOBAIR, PRABU NATARAJAN, DANIEL HICKEY, MARIA T.
NORMAN, STEPHEN C. MOVIUS, MARK A. CAYLOR, MARK RABINOWITZ, SILVA
THOMAS, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06794 (C.D.
Cal., September 9, 2016), was filed individually and as
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries in the
Northrop Grumman Savings Plan.

The Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee
pension benefit plan.

Northrop Grumman Corporation -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/
-- is a global security company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com

        - and -

     William A. White, Esq.
     HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP
     One California Plaza, 37th Floor
     300 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147
     Phone: (213) 620-0460
     Fax: (213) 620-4840
     E-mail: wwhite@hillfarrer.com


NYC BUILDING: Faces "Quiroz" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN NAJERA QUIROZ and SERGIO CASTILLO HUERTA, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NYC
BUILDING MANAGEMENT LLC (d/b/a NYC BUILDING MANAGEMENT) and IVAN
SUN, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07077 (S.D.N.Y., September 10,
2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders
of the New York Commission of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control 15 residential buildings
located at different addresses around Manhattan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 30, 2016, that the Company is in the discovery phase of the
case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and
Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County
of Riverside, Case No. 1100527.

On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company under California's private attorney general
act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other
things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. As
the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have
been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report.
Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be
recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on
the Company's operating results. As a result of the filing of the
Petitions, this case is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay
provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Beeney" Case in California Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 30, 2016, that the case, Tamara Beeney, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case
No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, has been stayed pursuant to the
automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to
such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply
to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on
the plaintiff's motion was held on November 24, 2015. At such
hearing, the Court certified a class with respect to two of the
plaintiff's claims and refused to certify a class with respect to
the plaintiff's three remaining claims.

As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts
have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report.
Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be
recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on
the Company's operating results. As a result of the filing of the
Petitions, this case is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay
provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case in California Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 30, 2016, that the case, Shayna Broadstone, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs.
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp,
and Does 1-100, Superior Court for the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, Case No. BC594799, has been stayed pursuant to the
automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On September 16, 2015, the plaintiff in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging claims
for four violations of California's wage and hour rules and
regulations with regard to the Company's "on call" shifts for its
retail associates. The complaint seeks class certification,
appointment of the plaintiff as a class representative, and an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The action is stayed
until the date of the first status conference. The Company
believes that three of the plaintiff's four claims are barred by
the relevant statutes of limitation, and that all of the claims
are subject to a valid arbitration agreement which prohibits the
plaintiff from pursuing her claims on a collective basis.

As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts
have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report.
Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be
recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on
the Company's operating results. As a result of the filing of the
Petitions, this case is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay
provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.


PAPA FRESH: "Mayoral-Climico" Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRO MAYORAL-CLIMICO, and JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ ANDRADE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PAPA FRESH, INC. d/b/a Papa John's;
RICHARD D. SCHRAGGER, and ALICE M. LAMB Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07079 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2016), alleges violations of the
Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law.

Papa John's is a restaurant company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply
Co. and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and
legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that
defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others
that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On
February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed
by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental,
Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey
Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-
CV-00696-BMC-GRB. Subject to certain exclusions, the putative
class representatives seek to represent all persons who purchased
dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the
defendants, or non-defendant Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.,
since August 31, 2008.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on price. The
consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest,
and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees.  Putative class representatives have not specified a
damage amount in their complaint.

"While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we
believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit,
and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation," the
Company said.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the "Michaeli" derivative and class
action complaint.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class
action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al.,
C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and
directors (collectively, the "Defendants")."

"On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants
breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with
certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our
Board of Directors during the past four fiscal years ended April
30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King
on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option
grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and
certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment,
during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of
compensation to our non-employee directors.

"In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached
their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder
action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and
misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of
stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on
May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the Defendants on
December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive
compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for
our benefit. The Defendants filed their answer to the Amended
Complaint on February 19, 2016.

"We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend the action. In addition, due to the early
stage of this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter."


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Nov. 2016 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that a final approval
hearing has been set in November 2016, on the $1.4 million
settlement in the case, Laumea v. Performance Food Group, Inc.

The Company said, "In May 2014, a former employee of our Roma of
Southern California distribution center filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the San Bernardino County, California Superior
Court against us. We removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California."

"In September 2014, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
There are different counts for which the putative classes differ.
The first class is proposed to be all former and current employees
employed by our Performance Foodservice and Vistar segments in
California in non-exempt positions at any time during the period
beginning May 30, 2010 to the present, or the "California Class."
With respect to the California Class, the lawsuit alleges that we
(1) failed to pay overtime as required by California statute, (2)
failed to provide meal periods and to pay compensation for such
meal periods, (3) failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and (4) engaged in unfair trade practices by failing
to pay overtime or to provide meal periods, or pay compensation in
lieu thereof. The lawsuit further alleges the plaintiff is
entitled to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the California
Private Attorney General Act.

"The second putative class is proposed to be all members of the
California Class who separated from employment at any time during
the period from May 30, 2011 to the present, or the "California
Subclass." With respect to the California Subclass, the lawsuit
alleges that we failed to pay all compensation due upon
termination of employment and within the period due. The third
putative class is proposed to be all current or former employees
employed by us in the United States in non-exempt positions at any
time during the period beginning May 30, 2011 to the present, or
the "Nationwide Class." With respect to the Nationwide Class, the
lawsuit alleges we willfully failed to pay overtime compensation
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"In June 2015, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiff, subject
to the limitation that the interests of the Nationwide Class would
not be mediated except to the extent members of the Nationwide
Class worked in California during the applicable period, and the
plaintiff agreed. The mediator proposed the parties settle the
lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $1.4 million, on a
claims-made basis with a floor of 60% payout net of attorney fees,
administrative fees and enhancements.

"In July 2015, we indicated our non-binding agreement to the
mediator's proposal, subject to negotiation of a mutually
agreeable settlement. The plaintiff also indicated its agreement
to the mediator's proposal. Therefore, this amount was accrued in
June 2015.

"In May 2016, we and the plaintiff entered into a Stipulation for
Settlement and Release of Class Action Claims, which Stipulation
received preliminary court approval on July 25, 2016.

"We anticipate notice of the agreed Stipulation will be issued in
September 2016 after which a forty-five day claim period will
commence. The final approval hearing has been set in November
2016.

"Should the parties fail to receive final court approval, which is
unanticipated, we intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves."


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Motion to Dismiss "Perez" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that a motion to dismiss
the case, Perez v. Performance Food Group, Inc., et al., remains
pending.

The Company said, "In April 2015, a former employee of our
Performance Foodservice -- Southern California distribution center
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Alameda County,
California Superior Court against us. We removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. In June 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint. The lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of
all hourly employees in California (excluding drivers) in our
Performance Foodservice and Vistar segments that we failed to
provide second meal periods and to pay compensation for such meal
periods. The lawsuit further alleges on behalf of a proposed class
of all employees in California (excluding drivers) who earned non-
discretionary compensation that we failed to pay all overtime
wages due, and to pay all premium wages for missed meal periods,
by failing to include all compensation required in the regular
rate of pay calculation, and failed to pay wages for all time
worked. The lawsuit further alleges on behalf of a proposed class
of all employees in California (excluding drivers) that we failed
to pay out vested vacation time in the form of paid holidays. The
lawsuit further alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all
employees described above that we (1) failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (2) failed to pay all compensation due
upon termination of employment and within the period due; and (3)
engaged in unfair trade practices."

"Each of the proposed classes for the preceding claims are for the
time period from April 20, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit
further alleges on behalf of all of our hourly employees in the
United States (excluding drivers) in non-exempt positions, that we
failed to pay appropriate overtime compensation pursuant to our
compensation policy, and to keep records required under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for the period from April 20, 2012 to the
present.

"Finally, the lawsuit alleges plaintiff is entitled to penalties
and attorney fees pursuant to the California Private Attorney
General Act. The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) unpaid
wages; (2) actual damages; (3) liquidated damages; (4)
restitution; (5) declaratory relief; (6) statutory penalties; (7)
civil penalties; and (8) attorneys' fees, interest and costs. In
July 2015, we filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Complaint.

"In March 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss all claims
except for the claim alleging we failed to provide accurate wage
statements. The court gave the plaintiff 21 days to amend his
complaint. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April
13, 2016. The plaintiff's claims in the second amended complaint
include substantially the same claims and allegations as the
original lawsuit. We filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the
Second Amended Complaint on May 11, 2016. The court has not yet
ruled on the motion."


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Paid $3.75MM Settlement Fund in "Contreras"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that the Company has paid
the settlement fund of $3,750,000 in the case, Contreras v.
Performance Food Group, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "In June 2014, a former employee of our Roma of
Southern California distribution center filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Alameda County, California Superior Court
against us. The putative class is proposed to be all drivers
employed in any of our California locations in our Performance
Foodservice and Vistar segments at any time during the period
beginning June 17, 2010 to the present."

"In August 2014, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that we engaged in unfair trade practices and
that we, with respect to the putative class, failed to (1) provide
timely offduty meal and rest breaks and to pay compensation for
such breaks as required by California law, (2) pay compensation
for all hours worked and to pay a minimum wage for such hours, (3)
provide accurate itemized wage statements, (4) pay all
compensation within the period due at the time of termination of
employment, and (5) pay compensation in timely fashion. The
lawsuit further alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to
penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the California Private
Attorney General Act and that failure to provide meal and rest
breaks and to pay a minimum wage for all hours worked constitute
unfair business practices.

"In June 2015, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiff. The
mediator proposed the parties settle the lawsuit on the basis of a
fully paid settlement fund of $3,750,000. In July 2015, the
parties agreed to the mediator's proposal, subject to negotiation
of a mutually agreeable settlement. Therefore, this amount was
accrued in June 2015. The parties executed a settlement agreement
which received final approval on May 4, 2016. We paid out the
settlement fund on June 17, 2016, which fully resolved the
lawsuit."


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Settled Vengris's Individual Claim
----------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that the Company has
reached a preliminary agreement to settle his individual claims
for an immaterial amount in the case, Vengris v. Performance Food
Group, Inc.

The Company said, "In May 2015, an employee of our Performance
Foodservice Northern California distribution center filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Alameda County, California
Superior Court against us. In July 2015, the Company removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The putative class is proposed to be all current
and former drivers employed in any of our, our subsidiaries' or
affiliated companies' California locations since May 2, 2011. The
lawsuit alleges that we (1) engaged in wage theft or time shaving
by auto-deducting thirty minutes from class members' work days
even if the class members worked during some or all of such meal
periods; (2) failed to pay class members for all time worked when
class members worked during first or second meal periods; (3)
failed to pay premium wages to class members for missed meal
periods; (4) failed to provide class members the opportunity to
take rest breaks of 10 minutes every four hours and failed to pay
premium wage for such missed rest breaks; (5) provided inaccurate
wage statements to the class members by failing to account for all
hours worked; (6) failed to pay all compensation within the period
due at the time of termination of employment; and (7) engaged in
unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices by
failing to itemize and keep accurate time records and by failing
to pay the class members in a lawful manner."

"The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) compensatory,
economic and special damages, with interest; (2) unpaid wages,
with interest; (3) premium wages for non-compliant meal periods
and rest breaks; (4) restitution for engaging in unlawful, unfair,
fraudulent, and deceptive business practices related to time
records and failure to pay the class members in a lawful manner;
(5) waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages owed to
class members who are former employees; (6) damages, monies owed,
and/or restitution for failing to provide accurate wage
statements; (7) injunctive relief barring the alleged violations;
and (8) attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

"In July 2015, we filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the
Complaint. The court transferred the case to the judge presiding
in the Contreras litigation, terminated the motion to dismiss
without prejudice and ruled that we will be able to refile the
motion, if necessary, in the future.

"We have reached a preliminary agreement with Mr. Vengris to
settle his individual claims for an immaterial amount. Should a
final settlement agreement not be reached, we intend to continue
to vigorously defend ourselves."


PURE STORAGE: Faces "Ramsay" Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Pure Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a purported securities
class action entitled Ramsay v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. was
filed on September 1, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of
California (San Mateo County) against the Company and certain of
its officers, directors, investors and underwriters.

The Company said, "The complaint asserts claims under sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. section 77
related to alleged inaccuracies, omissions, misstatements or
misrepresentations in our registration statement filed in
connection with our initial public offering. While we have not yet
responded to the complaint, we believe there is no merit to the
allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously."


RELIABLE CLEAN-UP: Faces "Lopez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO LOPEZ and JULIO HUESCA, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. RELIABLE CLEAN-UP AND
SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, RELIABLE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DANIEL
SANTOS, and LUCIANO SANTOS Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02595-D
(N.D. Tex., September 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid "off the
clock" hours worked and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate construction and construction cleaning
businesses that specializes in residential and commercial
remodeling and renovations and make-ready construction cleaning.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gonzalo Serrano, Esq.
     Michael O'keefe Cowles, Esq.
     EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
     1801 N. Lamar, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (469) 203-2150
     Fax: (469) 629-5045
     E-mail: gserrano@equaljusticecenter.org
             mcowles@equaljusticecenter.org


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Court Has Not Issued Final Order on Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that in the
case, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, the Company has provided
an accounting of satisfaction of judgment to the Court and the
Court has not issued its final order.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards.

On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the
parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon
claims process for the class members as well as to other matters
related to this proceeding.

On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in
fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered
judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class
member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.

As a result of the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January
10, 2015.  The appeal remains pending but the judgment is
enforceable.

As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company
recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was
subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease
of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated
class member response.

On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims
administrator, began mailing the class action award to class
members. The Company, through the third party claims
administrator, paid approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to
the class members and mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one
year, on purchases up to $10,000, to class members that did not
request the cash award.

During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the Court provided additional
guidance regarding the manner in which class members can use the
33% merchandise discount coupon. Specifically, the court ordered
that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other
promotional offers. The coupons expired on March 16, 2016.

On April 5, 2016, the Company provided an accounting of
satisfaction of judgment to the Court and the Court has not issued
its final order.

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


SAHARA BEACH: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAIDEL RAMIREZ RODRIGUEZ and WILBER PEREZ, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs.
SAHARA BEACH CLUB MOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and DEZER
GIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23848-CMA (S.D. Fla., September
8, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sahara Beach Club Motel Condominium Assoc. is a civic and social
association located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: S7 Phones Not Water-Resistant, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Samsung Electronics' Galaxy
S7 cellphones are not water-resistant, as advertised, a class
action claims in Riverside, Calif. Federal Court.


SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Broiler Chicken Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, that
Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries Sanderson Farms, Inc.
(Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division) and
Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division) were named as
defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of
their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit
filed on September 2, 2016 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the
defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price of broiler chickens by coordinating and
limiting their production capacity. The lawsuit also alleges that
the defendants fraudulently concealed such anticompetitive conduct
in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaint seeks treble
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit
is in its earliest stage and we intend to defend it vigorously.


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss
class action lawsuit in New York remains pending.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers (the
President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of
Finance and Treasurer). As amended, the lawsuit claims in part
that the Company issued inaccurate information to investors about,
among other things, the Company's earnings and income and its
internal controls over financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and
the first and second fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an
award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative
class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between January 12, 2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive.
The Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 18, 2016.


SHIRE PLC: Final Decision in ELAPRASE Suit Expected in 18 Months
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shire plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, that a
final decision is expected within the next 18 months in the
lawsuit related to supply of ELAPRASE to certain patients in
Brazil.

On September 24, 2014 Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire
Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the
State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's
office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide
certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period
at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical
trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian
government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date,
and moral damages associated with these claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and
dismissed all the claims under the class action, which decision
has been appealed. A final decision is expected within the next 18
months.


SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,094 Employees Join Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that 10,094 current and
former employees have submitted consent forms to opt in to a
collective action.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and
SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification
motion was held in late February 2014.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015.  Claimants
filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for
Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI
filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on
March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015.
Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015.

SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March
23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion
was heard on May 4, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their
opposition on December 2, 2015. SJI filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of
the Southern District's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order.

The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with
the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants
filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the
Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class
Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015.

Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was
granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for
Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and
Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was
filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015.

The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants' Motion on
December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay
Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period,
conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a
collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to
the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the
AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's
Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal
Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And
Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period
on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their
opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI's Motion on
April 5, 2016.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award
And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016,
SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard
on SJI's Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on May
22, 2016. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination
Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator
entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award
to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the
injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the
arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April
5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation
Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related
Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in
the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants'
opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully briefed
and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The parties await a
ruling on the motion. Notice to EPA collective action members was
issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice
recipients closed on August 1, 2016.

At this time, 10,094 current and former employees have submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Defends Lawsuit by EOCC
----------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a lawsuit by the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District
Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female
retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The
EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed in mid-May 2013.

In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment
on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment
motion in December 2013.

On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report,
Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's
motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims
in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate
Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District
Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014
entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice.

On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the
District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed
the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015.

On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's
order and remanding the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and
En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015.

On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling
Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of
Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on
December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in
the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016. The EEOC
filed their brief in response on August 1, 2016 and Sterling's
reply was filed on August 15, 2016.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been
defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation is able to be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against Zale Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend its position in the litigation against Zale
Corporation.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in
three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale
Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23,
2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated
various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of
current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's
employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and
attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without
admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an
agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an
immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on
March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action
Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on June 3, 2015.

On April 6, 2016, the Court conditionally certified an opt-in
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all
current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a
Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt and who
worked in a Zale retail store in the United States at any time
from July 3, 2010 to the present. Additionally, the court
certified an opt-out class action of the remaining claims on
behalf of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware
Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as
nonexempt, and worked in a Zale retail store in the State of
California at any time from July 3, 2009 through the present.

At this time, the class has not yet received notice of the ruling
and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt
out. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this
litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Dube" Shareholder Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that Susan Dube filed on
August 25, 2016, a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, purportedly on behalf of stockholders that
acquired the Company's securities between January 7, 2016, and
June 3, 2016, inclusive (Dube v. Signet Jewelers Limited, et al.,
Civ. No. 16-6728 (S.D.N.Y.)).  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's business and earnings by failing to disclose that the
Company was allegedly experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety
of customer's jewelry while in Signet's custody for repairs, a
drop-off in customer confidence, and increased competitive
pressures.  Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations, the Company's share price was artificially
inflated.  The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.  The
Company believes that the allegations in this complaint are
without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability,
if any, at this time.


SILICON GRAPHICS: Class Action Filed Over HPE Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Graphics International Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2,
2016, for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2016, that the Company
faces litigation related to the Company's proposed acquisition by
HPE.

The Company said, "Subsequent to the Company's fiscal year end, on
August 29, 2016,  a stockholder class action complaint was filed
in Santa Clara Superior Court on behalf of a putative class of SGI
stockholders and naming as defendants SGI's Board of Directors,
SGI, HPE, and Acquisition Sub: Kierkla v. SGI, as the result of
the Company's signing a definitive agreement to be acquired by
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE")."

"The complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of SGI by HPE, the individual director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to SGI's stockholders
by, among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to
maximize the value of SGI to SGI's stockholders and agreeing to
allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement. The complaints further allege that HPE, Acquisition
Sub, and/or SGI aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek,
among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, in the event that the
proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages, an order
directing defendants to account to the class for damages allegedly
sustained, and attorneys' fees and costs.

"The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and any directors and/or officers named in the
lawsuit as defendants.  SGI has not booked an accrual relating to
any of these matters at this time, as amounts are not probable or
estimable."


SIMONIZ USA: Faces "Burgos" Suit Under FLSA, Conn. Min. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL BURGOS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SIMONIZ USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01528 (D. Conn., September 9, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalty damages and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, Connecticut General Statutes.

Defendant manufactures and distributes car wax and similar
products out of its locations in Bolton and Rocky Hill,
Connecticut, and it performs auto detailing services at its West
Harford, Connecticut location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
     THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
     221 Main Street, Suite 502
     Hartford, CT 06106
     Phone: (860) 522-8888
     Fax: (860) 218-9555
     E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Daniel S. Blinn, Esq.

     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
     Rocky Hill, CT 06067
     Phone: (860) 571-0408
     Fax: (860) 571-7457
     E-mail: dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com


SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Lifetime Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that music fans who paid big bucks for lifetime subscriptions to
Sirius XM Radio thinking they'd be listening to the satellite
radio service on their deathbeds were wrong, a class action claims
in Santa Ana, Calif., They've only got till their receivers die.

"Defendant systematically advertised and sold its lifetime
subscriptions to consumers by leading consumers to believe that
such lifetime subscriptions were for the lifetime of the
consumer," lead plaintiff Paul Wright says on September 12, class
action in Federal Court.

"However, when consumers have tried to transfer their lifetime
subscriptions from one receiver to another or from one automobile
to another, defendant has taken the position that the 'lifetime'
referred to is not the lifetime of the purchasing consumer, but
the lifetime of the receiver or automobile."

Early purchasers of satellite radio "took a chance and paid large
upfront lifetime subscription fees" to Sirius, with no guarantee
that it would survive as a business, "but in the hope that if
defendant did survive, their lifetime subscription purchases would
pay off over time," Wright says in the complaint.

Sirius XM Radio was formed in 2008 in a merger between competitors
Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio. Although the new
company verged upon bankruptcy a few times, today it has more than
24 million paid subscribers.

Tens of thousands of them purchased lifetime subscriptions, the
class action estimates.

Wright says that Sirius XM's "refusal to honor the lifetime
subscriptions has allowed it to reap millions of dollars in
profits while individual consumers find they have spent hundreds
of dollars for a lifetime subscription that is not as it was
represented and not as expected."

Wright bought a lifetime subscription in December 2006 for about
$400. He got no service agreement or other written agreement about
his lifetime subscription, he says.

Wright says "understood 'lifetime' to be his lifetime, as is used
in the ordinary course of business." He got "no verbal or written
notice that the lifetime subscription was limited to the original
device only" or was limited in any other way.

Wright found out otherwise in January this year when his portable
receiver, known as a Stiletto, gave out and he bought a
replacement. He tried to transfer his lifetime subscription, but
Sirius refused.

Neither the company's director of corporate communications nor its
general counsel could be reached late on September 13, for
comment.

However, an item on the Sirius XM website says that lifetime
subscriptions purchased before June 20, 2005, can be transferred
to new devices indefinitely. Those purchased between that date and
Sept. 7, 2007, can be transferred three times. Ones bought after
that date for use in a home or portable receiver can be
transferred three times, for a fee. Those installed in a car radio
cannot be transferred.

Based on that policy, Wright should be able to move his
subscription to a new receiver three times. The class action
insists, however, that he was never told about any policy or
limitation, but nonetheless was denied a transfer.

His attorney, Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- of
Ahdoot & Wolfson, did not return a call about the case.

Wright seeks class certification, restitution, an injunction and
damages for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unfair
competition, breach of express and implied contract, and consumer
law violations.


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: "Williams" Sues Directors Over Pay Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. stockholders and derivatively on
behalf of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiff, v. HENRY JI,
WILLIAM S. MARTH, KIM D. JANDA, JAISIM SHAH, DAVID H. DEMING,
DOUGLAS EBERSOLE, GEORGE NG, AND JEFFERY SU, Defendants, and
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant, 59534713
Case No. 12729- (Del. Ch., September 8, 2016), is a stockholders'
suit over the Board of Directors' quid pro quo self-compensation
scheme.

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged
in the discovery, acquisition, development, and commercialization
of proprietary drug therapies for addressing significant unmet
medical needs worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Friedlander, Esq.
     Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
     Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
     FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
     1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 573-3500

        - and -

     Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
     David Wales, Esq.
     John Vielandi, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400

        - and -

     Francis Bottini Jr., Esq.
     BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
     7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102
     La Jolla, CA 92037


SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: "de Leon" Suit Invokes FLSA, Fla. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Ponce de Leon, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s) v. Southern Transport Group, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and Leyda P. Escobar, individually, Defendant(s),
Case 1:16-cv-23879-FAM (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2016), was filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage
Act.

Southern Transport Group Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business
from Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami FL 33130
     Phone: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005
     E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
             apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
             rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
             pn@rgpattorneys.com


TAILORED BRANDS: Defending Against "Makhlouf" Action
----------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the case by Peter Makhlouf.

On March 29, 2016, Peter Makhlouf filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Douglas S. Ewert, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:16-cv-00838). The
complaint attempts to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the Company and its CEO
made certain statements about the Company's acquisition and
subsequent integration of Jos. A. Bank that were false and
misleading and omitted material facts.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously. The range of loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


TAILORED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss "Lucas" Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the motion to dismiss
the lawsuit by David Lucas and Eric Salerno is still pending
before the Court.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of
themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed
a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB
JLB).  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A.
Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price
advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions.  The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory
damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust
enrichment, costs and attorney fees.  Mr. Salerno subsequently
withdrew from the case leaving Mr. Lucas as the sole named
plaintiff.

In July 2016 several key events occurred. Over the course of
several days, the Plaintiff's counsel withdrew the plaintiff's
motion for class certification, filed a motion to dismiss the
case, with prejudice, and filed a motion to withdraw as counsel to
Mr. Lucas. The Court granted plaintiff's counsel's motion to
withdraw. The motion to dismiss is still pending before the Court.

"As a result, this case will not have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and
we will no longer be reporting on this matter in subsequent
filings," the Company said.


TILLY'S INC: Appeal in "Christiansen" Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Kirstin Christiansen, Shellie Smith
and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-139010.

On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of
California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting
or requiring personal identification information from a customer
paying for goods with a credit card and recording such
information, subject to exceptions. The complaint seeks
certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

In June 2013, the court granted our motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
The parties completed class certification discovery and briefing,
and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, the court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On or around November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of the court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The deadline for plaintiffs to file their opening
brief had been extended until September 9, 2016 and no opening
brief has been filed yet.

"We intend to defend this case vigorously," the Company said.


TILLY'S INC: Nov. 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Rebolledo" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a final approval
hearing is scheduled with the court on November 4, 2016, in the
case Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs.
Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-
CXC.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013,
to add a claim for penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004."

"In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014,
we filed an answer to the amended complaint. The parties attended
a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution that will be
presented to the court for approval. A final approval hearing is
scheduled with the court on November 4, 2016."


TILLY'S INC: Settlement Reached in "Whitten" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the parties reached a
resolution that will be presented to the court for preliminary
approval on September 13, 2016, in the case, Karina Whitten, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's
Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case
No. BC 548252.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a
putative class action and representative Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's
wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations,
and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint
seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint on December 3, 2014, dismissing an expense
reimbursement claim."

"We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015, denying all
allegations, after which the case was stayed pending mediation. We
engaged in mediation in May 2016, and the parties reached a
resolution that will be presented to the court for preliminary
approval on September 13, 2016."


TILLY'S INC: Hearing Date on Demurrer Set for October 19
--------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the hearing date on the
Company's demurrer in the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, is
set for October 19, 2016.

The Company said, "On September 1, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair
competition law.  Specifically, the complaint asserts a violation
of the applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay
reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims.  The
complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.  We are
defending this case vigorously."

"On June 21, 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's.  Specifically, the court
agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-
time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other
putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to
certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based.  At the
hearing on the plaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.  The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on July 5, 2016, which brought the same claims
as her original complaint but added various factual allegations.

"On August 5, 2016, we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's
amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff's amended
complaint still failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's,
for the same reasons that the court granted our demurrer as to the
plaintiff's original complaint.  The hearing date on our demurrer
is currently set for October 19, 2016, as is the next status
conference.

"On August 30, 2016, however, the parties submitted a joint
stipulation to continue the hearing and status conference date to
October 26, 2016. The plaintiff filed her opposition on August 24,
2016. Per the parties' stipulation, our reply is due October 12,
2016."


TRS RECOVERY: Faces "Grind" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE GRIND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1-10,
AND EACH OF THEM, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-06783 (C.D. Cal.,
September 9, 2016), alleges willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

TRS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. is a company involved in consumer debt
buying and recovery/collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Lawyer Wants Case Trial Delayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
despite knowing months ago he may have a scheduling conflict,
Donald Trump's attorney waited until late on September 12, to
request to push back the November trial date for the first Trump
University class action case to get its day in court.

Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli asked U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel to push back the post-election trial date in Low v.
Trump University currently set for Nov. 28 to either Dec. 12 or
Jan. 2, 2017.

Lead plaintiff Sonny Low and others sued Donald Trump and Trump
University in 2010 -- long before Trump announced his bid for
president -- on claims they were duped into paying upwards of
$35,000 to learn insider real estate secrets from instructors
"handpicked" by Trump himself.

In September 12 filing, Petrocelli cited a conflict as he is also
slated to begin trial in a class action against satellite radio
giant Sirius XM on Nov. 15. That trial is expected to last seven
court days.  Petrocelli says he asked the judge presiding over Flo
& Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio to continue that trial to make way
for the Trump University case but U.S. District Judge Philip
Gutierrez denied his request.

If the Sirius trial lasted the estimated seven days, that means
Petrocelli would finish that trial on Nov. 23 -- the day before
Thanksgiving -- only to start the Trump University trial the
Monday after the holiday.

Petrocelli never mentioned the Sirius trial date -- which was set
nine months ago -- because "it did not immediately come to mind,
nor was it at the time clear that an actual conflict would
materialize," according to his filing. He did not bring up the
scheduling conflict until a hearing on Aug. 26 -- three months
before the Low trial was set to begin.

Trump's attorney said he would be prejudiced if the Low trial date
is not pushed back, as he won't be able to prepare and conduct
pretrial work in the days leading up to the November trial. A
hearing on jury instructions for the Low case has also been set
for Nov. 18 -- right in the middle of Petrocelli's Sirius trial.
He also pointed out the Sirius trial could likely extend beyond
the seven-day estimate -- especially in light of the Thanksgiving
holiday -- meaning the two trials could very well butt into each
other.

"Granting this request would resolve the existing conflict while
respecting the court's preference that trial occur between the
election and inauguration (if Mr. Trump were to be elected), and
would cause no prejudice to plaintiffs," Petrocelli wrote.

Trump retained Petrocelli -- his fourth attorney in the case --
last November.

Earlier this summer, Petrocelli asked Curiel to schedule the trial
for after the presidential election on Nov. 8. Low and the other
plaintiffs wanted the trial to be held sometime this summer.

Petrocelli then proposed a February 2017 trial date, after the
presidential inauguration. Curiel denied that request, saying the
trial needed to be held between the election and inauguration.

Trump's attorney called his continuance request "modest," noting
the case has been pending for six years and he's asking for a
delay of no more than 35 days and as few as 14 days. If his
request is granted, the trial would still take place before the
presidential inauguration per Curiel's order, Petrocelli added.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney Jason Forge filed a notice with the
court on September 12, indicating his clients will file a formal
opposition to Petrocelli's request on or before Sept. 14.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP
UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., Defendants., Case No. 10-CV-0940-GPC
(WVG)(S.D. Cal.)

            Plaintiffs Object to Postponement of Trial

Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former Trump University students chastised Donald Trump and his
attorney on September 14, saying Trump "can't be trusted" to
proceed and the "convenience" of one attorney should not postpone
the 6-1/2-year-old case from having its day in court.

On September 12, Daniel Petrocelli -- Trump's fourth attorney in
the Low v. Trump University case -- asked U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel to move the Nov. 28 trial date to either Dec. 12 or
Jan. 2, 2017. Petrocelli cited a conflicting trial in another
California court just days before the first Trump University trial
is set to begin.

Lead plaintiff Sonny Low and other former Trump University
students sued Trump in 2010 on claims that they were duped into
paying upwards of $35,000 to learn insider real estate secrets
from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. They are
represented by attorney Jason Forge.

On September 14, the plaintiffs called Petrocelli's request
"untimely and unjustified," noting the lawyer's conflicting trial
date in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio was set nine months
ago and the trial date for the Low case was set four months ago.
Petrocelli never brought up the scheduling conflict until a court
hearing held late last month.

The class wants Curiel to deny Trump's delay request and move up
the jury selection proceedings.

At a scheduling hearing this past May, Low and the other
plaintiff's requested a summer trial date -- which Trump
vehemently opposed. Petrocelli suggested a post-inauguration trial
date of for February 2017 which Curiel denied, saying the trial
needed to be held between election and Inauguration Day, should
Trump be elected president.

Petrocelli works for O'Melveny & Meyers out of Los Angeles. The
law firm -- which employs about 700 lawyers -- became the fourth
to represent Trump in the older of two class actions against his
now-defunct Trump University being litigated in San Diego.

Low and the others pointed out that from last November -- when
Petrocelli was retained by Trump -- and the present, Curiel has
accommodated multiple requests by Trump to move potential trial
dates around his campaign schedule. They also say Petrocelli had
at least four opportunities between January and August to inform
Curiel of the conflict.

Pushing the trial date back could "risk an indefinite delay and
guarantee significant personal and professional hardship for
everyone who took Trump at his word," Low and the others claim.

Offering a potential explanation on why Petrocelli never mentioned
the scheduling conflict, Low and the others say he was simply
following Trump's marching orders to avoid a pre-election trial at
all costs.

"Defense counsel was following orders to avoid at all costs a pre-
election trial, and he realized that raising a potential conflict
with the November 28 trial date would have likely led the court to
give stronger consideration to its originally planned August trial
(as plaintiffs were still urging), or perhaps September or
October," the class says.

Despite knowing about the conflict, Trump's attorneys repeatedly
relied on the "proximate" November trial date when arguing against
making videotapes of his deposition publicly available. This
points to his attorneys' radio silence as a "tactical decision"
that "should not be rewarded by this court," the plaintiffs claim.

But despite all the lambasting, the plaintiffs still brainstorm
ways to ensure the Trump University trial can begin Nov. 28 --
with Petrocelli at both of his engagements.

They urged Curiel to begin jury selection on Oct. 31 to provide a
two-day "cushion" at the front-end of the Low trial and avoid the
possibility of Petrocelli's Sirius trial butting into their case.

Far from an olive branch, however, the class also questioned
Petrocelli's importance to Trump's case.

"With all due respect to defense counsel, he was not Trump's
first, second, or third choice to represent him in this case, so
it cannot be credibly asserted that he is somehow indispensable."

Curiel has repeatedly said it is important to get the Low case --
one of his oldest, if not the oldest, cases on his docket -- to
trial, especially since it includes financial elder abuse claims.

Low and the others say that means "it's only fair" for Trump and
Petrocelli to bear the risk of any inconvenience.

But the class mostly fears another delay will mean that their case
never gets its day in court. Since Trump has no political
experience he will need extra time to get the hang of running the
nation and may try to postpone the trial indefinitely if elected,
they say.

"As the situation demonstrates, Trump cannot be trusted to refrain
from making and breaking any promises to proceed to trial on any
given date," the plaintiffs say. "And the later the request, the
more likely it is to be granted -- if not by this court, then by a
reviewing court. After all, Trump has no political experience, and
if he is elected president, each day closer he gets to
inauguration would only strengthen an argument that he needs to
dedicate more time to figuring out how to run our country."

The Low case is set to go to trial Nov. 28. A hearing on Trump's
delay request has not yet been set.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants.,
No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) (S.D Cal.)


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Say Opt-Outs Can't Testify
-------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former Trump University students suing Donald Trump want to
prevent the Republican presidential candidate from cherry-picking
positive testimony from a handful of students who opted out of the
looming 7,500-member class action in San Diego.

In an opposition filed on September 9, Sonny Low and the other
lead plaintiffs in Low v. Trump University claim that long before
their 2010 class action case was even certified, Trump
"aggressively sought out 'satisfied' former students nationwide"
who'd be willing to testify about their positive Trump University
experience.

Low and the others sued Trump long before he announced his bid for
president, claiming they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000
based on the promise that they'd learn insider real estate secrets
from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself.

In the September 9 filing, the students claim Trump launched an
"unprecedented, nationwide multimedia campaign" that touted Trump
University and condemned its detractors in the hopes of finding
willing students to testify on the school's behalf if the time
came. The plaintiffs want the students who opted out of the class
action to be barred from testifying during the first phase of the
trial.

Out of 7,611 former students in Low and the related, Cohen v.
Trump case, only 13 opted out of the class actions, the students
say. If Trump wants to call as witnesses eight of the opt-out
students -- whom he has identified -- the plaintiffs say they
would have to call 600 former students per opt-out student for the
testimony to be a fair ratio.

"Defendants seek to parade a few needles before the jury -- and
destroy the class action status of this case in the process -- by
forcing plaintiffs to present the entire haystack so the jury is
not misled," the filing read.

Interestingly, one of the eight students Trump wants to call as a
witness is former lead plaintiff in the case, Tarla Makaeff. U.S.
District Judge Gonzalo Curiel allowed Makaeff to withdraw as lead
plaintiff earlier this year when she claimed testifying during the
trial would conflict with her new job and cause her emotional
distress.

Since Makaeff's withdrawal, Trump has made a big issue of changes
he said the class has made at the last minute, even asking to
decertify the class. That motion was denied last month.

Trump hopes the testimony of opt-out students like Marla Rains
Colic will illustrate that not all students believed Trump
University was accredited or that Trump was personally involved in
the day-to-day management of the school, including "handpicking"
instructors.

The plaintiffs claim the testimony of absent class members is
irrelevant to the common liability issues certified by the court.
They say the students Trump wants to call to testify account for
less than 0.002 percent of all live-event students, and that
there's no way they could speak for the entire class.

"There are always anomalies due to quirky perspectives, dumb luck
or any number of other reasons. That is why a small number of
witnesses is extremely telling, given Trump's aggressive
multimedia campaign to enlist students as his shields. The fact
that defendants only found a few willing candidates, despite
Trump's celebrity and power, only bolsters plaintiffs' point that
these are outliers," the plaintiffs say in the opposition.

Hundreds of students have contacted the plaintiffs' attorneys, and
in the past two weeks alone, 50 "student-victims" signed
declarations in support of the class, according to the filing.

"These facts bring into sharp focus why a few outliers simply
cannot meet the threshold test for relevance in defendants' own
case that is 'properly generalized to the class as a whole,'" the
class says.

Since the Low case is about Trump's "misconduct in a misleading
marketing scheme" and not that of Trump University students,
testimony from absent class members is inappropriate, according to
the plaintiffs.

But Trump argues the absent class members should be allowed to
testify due to his assertion that all individual class members
must prove they were exposed to the same marketing
misrepresentations as to the "accreditation" and "handpicked"
claims.

The plaintiffs called Trump's argument a "phantom issue, and say
after the first phase of trial Trump will be able to present proof
against specific students.

Testimony by absent class members should also be excluded because
of its high potential for "unfair prejudice, confusion of issues
and misleading the jury," the plaintiffs claim.

The lead plaintiffs were vetted by the court and found to have
claims "typical to that of the proposed class members." Allowing
the absent class members to testify would give unfair weight to
only a handful of former students in a sea of class members who
say they were cheated of thousands, the plaintiffs say.

"To allow nonclass members who were not scrutinized by the court
to effectively speak on behalf of the class would undermine the
representative action and create a false parity between typical
students and atypical ones," the students claim.

If testimony from students "culled by defendants to present a
curated viewpoint" was allowed, it would leave jurors with a
"misleading impression that the margins represent the other side
of the middle" and would significantly lengthen the first phase of
the trial, according to the plaintiffs.

The Low v. Trump University trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 28.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants.,
No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)(S.D. Cal.)


VALSPAR CORPORATION: "Mitsopoulos" Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
The Valspar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the plaintiff in
Mitsopoulos v. Valspar has dismissed the lawsuit.

On March 19, 2016, Valspar entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with The Sherwin-Williams Company
("Sherwin-Williams") and Viking Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sherwin-Williams ("Merger Sub").

On May 24, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
Merger was filed that named Valspar and its board of directors as
defendants. The complaint, captioned Mitsopoulos v. Valspar (Case
No. 12373), was filed on May 24, 2016 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware by a purported stockholder of Valspar. The
lawsuit sought to enjoin the transaction and alleged, among other
things, that the members of the Valspar board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information relating to the transaction, including with respect to
the financial analyses of Valspar's financial advisors and
financial projections prepared by Valspar management.

On June 16, 2016, Valspar filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
disclosing certain additional information relating to the proposed
Merger in response to allegations made in the above lawsuit. In
filing the Form 8-K, Valspar denied the allegations of the lawsuit
and the need for any supplemental disclosure, and stated it
believed the definitive proxy statement filed in connection with
the Merger disclosed all material information. However, Valspar
disclosed the additional information solely for the purpose of
avoiding the expense and burden of litigation. The plaintiff
dismissed the lawsuit on June 22, 2016.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: ISA Submits Position Paper on Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Israel Securities
Authority ("ISA") has submitted a position paper supporting the
Company's position regarding applicable law in the Israel
securities class actions.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us
in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of
purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The
complaint sought compensation for damages allegedly incurred by
the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous
financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light
of the proceedings already filed in the U.S., on March 31, 2008. A
hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing
in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the
threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 25, 2008.

On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our
favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our
liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed
on January 21, 2009. The Israeli District Court stayed its
proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs'
motion for leave to appeal.

On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme
Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court.
The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to
rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the
assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the
Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable
law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding
the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 24, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision
regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court.

In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli
Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130
S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently
pending before the court and requesting that this authority be
added to the court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to
reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to
the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay
the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.

On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We
filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the
application by three justices.

On July 2, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an
updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S.
securities class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012.

The Company said, "On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status
notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S.
securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the Israeli
Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended
that the parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the
Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the
U.S."

On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order
staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the
court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and
putative class members in this action are included in the
stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In
re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., unless an individual plaintiff opts
out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the
U.S. court, on May 1, 2014, the parties in the Israel class action
filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court
renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of
the applicable law.

"A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel
class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S.
class action. On July 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental
pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on
August 21, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading
on September 4, 2014. On April 2, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court
ruled that the Israeli class action is estopped by the U.S. class
action settlement and dismissed the case.

"On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint was filed against
us in Israel alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli
class action, and alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived
of due process in the U.S. class action settlement proceedings. We
are opposing the new class action and plaintiff's class
certification motion on substantially the same grounds on which
the previous case was dismissed. The court held a pretrial hearing
on that motion on May 19, 2016 at which it requested additional
information including expert reports, a position paper from the
Israel Securities Authority ("ISA"), and further briefing
scheduled through September 25, 2016. In July 2016, the ISA
submitted a position paper supporting our position regarding
applicable law.

"On June 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the 2008 Israel Securities
Class Action filed a motion for award of compensation and
attorneys' fees based on the amount of settlement compensation
received by Israelis in the U.S. class action. On January 14,
2016, the Israeli District Court denied this motion. Plaintiff has
not timely appealed, and that ruling is now final."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the opening appeal
brief in the appeal in the case, In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, is due on September 19, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us, certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV
13-1853) were filed in April 2013.

"On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law
firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class
actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235
Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v.
VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their
respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July
17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014
and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court
took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument.
On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on October 7, 2014.

"On March 29, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, finding it insufficiently pled, and
granted leave to amend by June 3, 2016. Instead of filing a third
amended complaint, lead plaintiffs stipulated to a judgment of
dismissal with prejudice so they could appeal the court's
dismissal of their second amended complaint, which judgment the
court entered on June 6, 2016.

"On June 9, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The
opening appeal brief is due on September 19, 2016 and the reply is
due on November 2, 2016. An appeal hearing has not yet been
scheduled."


VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Denied Motion to Certify Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a district court has
denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a lawsuit as a class action.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms.
Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the
grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees
and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the
Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages."

"On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.
On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

"In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel
Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based
on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

"On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an
amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect
the distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of
capital stock of its former subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., on July
12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in
assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled
that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel
class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a
motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently
withdrew it in July 2014.

"Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in us. On September 9, 2015, Comverse changed its name to Xura,
Inc. ("Xura"), and on August 19, 2016, Xura was taken private by
affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC.

"On February 4, 2013, we merged with CTI. As a result of the
merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI,
including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District
Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms
of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to
the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are
entitled to indemnification from Comverse (now Xura) for any
losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI
in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding
before the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the
District Court (i) denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit
as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint
stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify
the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or
former employees of Comverse Limited (now Xura) or VSL who held
unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option
exercises as a result of its previous extended filing delay
period. The court also ruled that the merits of the case and any
calculation of damages would be evaluated under New York law. The
plaintiffs have 45 days from September 6, 2016 to appeal the
portions of the plaintiffs' motion denied by the court."


VOYA FINANCIAL: Nestle 401(k) Savings Planholders File Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA PATRICO, On Behalf of The Nestle 401(K) Savings Plan and All
Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans Plaintiff, v.
VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., VOYA INSTITUTIONAL PLAN SERVICES, LLC; VOYA
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; and VOYA RETIREMENT ADVISORS, LLC
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07070 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2016),
was filed on behalf of the Nestle 401(k) Savings Plan and all
other similarly situated qualified retirement plans, under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

VOYA FINANCIAL, INC. is an American financial, retirement,
investment and insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John J. Nestico, Esq.
     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 315-3841
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
             gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd Schneider, Esq.
     Mark Johnson, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd S. Collins, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
     E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net


WAL-MART STORES: Paid $242MM Judgment in Wage-And-Hour Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company has paid
approximately $242 million for the judgment amount and post-
judgment interest owed to the class in the wage-and-hour class
action.

The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court
of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and
rest breaks.

On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of
the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.

On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in
the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November
14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set
aside on appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On
June 10, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals issued
an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class,
the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties
and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys'
fees.

On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. On
December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its
opinion affirming the Superior Court of Appeals' decision.

At that time, the Company recorded expenses of $249 million for
the judgment amount and post-judgment interest incurred to date.
The Company continued to accrue for the post-judgment interest
until it made the payment.

On March 13, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 4, 2016, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari
and the case has been returned to the trial court. On June 15,
2016, the Company paid approximately $242 million for the judgment
amount and post-judgment interest owed to the class.

A dispute remains regarding the appropriate amount of attorney's
fees to be paid by the Company. The Company believes that an
adverse decision regarding, or settlement of, the attorney's fee
issue will not have a material impact on its financial condition
or results of operations.


WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Equal Value Claims Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend the ASDA Equal Value Claims.

ASDA Stores, Ltd. ("ASDA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, is a defendant in over 7,000 "equal value" claims that
are proceeding before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the
"Employment Tribunal") in the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of
current and former ASDA store employees, who allege that the work
performed by female employees in ASDA's retail stores is of equal
value in terms of, among other things, the demands of their jobs
to that of male employees working in ASDA's warehouse and
distribution facilities, and that the disparity in pay between
these different job positions is not objectively justified.
Claimants are requesting differential back pay based on higher
wage rates in the warehouse and distribution facilities and those
higher wage rates on a prospective basis as part of these equal
value proceedings. ASDA believes that further claims may be
asserted in the near future.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all
proceedings and to "strike out" substantially all of the claims.
On July 23, 2015, the Employment Tribunal denied ASDA's requests.
Following additional proceedings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal
agreed to review the "strike out" issue and the Court of Appeals
agreed to review the stay issue.

On May 26, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied ASDA's appeal of the
stay issue. At present, the Company cannot predict the number of
such claims that may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any
loss or range of loss that may arise from these proceedings. The
Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to
these claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously.


WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the Altman class action has been denied.

Judge Steve C. Jones held that "After de novo review, the
magistrate's R&R is hereby REJECTED. Plaintiff's objections are
hereby SUSTAINED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental
Authority is hereby DEEMED MOOT as the Court was able to find
post-Spokeo authority in its own independent research. Action
referred back to Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas for further
action."

Following that Ruling, White House Black Market, Inc. filed a
motion asking the district court to certify an interlocutory
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

Plaintiff has filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion.

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit
or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its
motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company
continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not
appropriate for class treatment.  It intends to vigorously defend
the matter.

At this time however, it is not possible to predict whether the
proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of
the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company
will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise.
Because the case is still in the early stages and class
determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to
estimate any potential loss or range of loss.

Bryant T. Lamer, Esq. -- blamer@spencerfane.com -- at Spencer Fane
Britt & Browne; and Shimshon E. Wexler, Esq., at Shimshon Wexler,
Attorney At Law.

White House Black Market, Inc. is represented by Barry Goheen --
bgoheen@kslaw.com -- Ian Edward Smith, John Anthony Love --
tlove@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP.


WILLIS LTD: Faces Suit by Stanford Claimants
--------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
people with $135 million in claims from R. Allen Stanford's $7
billion Ponzi scheme sued British insurance broker Willis Ltd.,
claiming it aided and abetted the fraud by issuing false "safety
and security" letters.

Lead plaintiff Edna Abel and 274 other individuals or couples hold
more than $135 million in claims approved by court-appointed
receiver Ralph Janvey. Stanford, 65, was sentenced in 2012 to 110
years in federal prison for 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire
fraud and mail fraud.

Abel et al. sued Willis of Colorado Inc., WGH Holdings Ltd., and
Willis Ltd. on September 12, in Dallas Federal Court.  They claim
they and their financial advisers were "all influenced" by
Willis's conspiring in the scheme, in which they bought Stanford's
phony certificates of deposit.

"For many of these plaintiffs, their Stanford investments
represented significant portions of their life savings," the
complaint states. "These letters provide assurances to potential
purchasers of CDs that, among other things, Stanford Financial had
passed stringent risk management review by outside auditors."

The plaintiffs say Stanford Investment Bank bought insurance
policies from Willis, then obtained the "comfort" letters to
market the CDs.

"Willis' comfort letters intentionally created the false
perception that SIB carried multiple insurance policies designed
to ensure that investments in SIB CDs were as safe and secure as
investments in CDs issued by banks insured by the FDIC," the
complaint states. "They also claimed that Stanford Financial had
undergone a stringent risk management review when, in fact, it had
not. The letters were delivered to unwitting SGC [Stanford Group
Company] financial advisors to use as marketing tools."

The said Willis was the insurance broker for SIB and that the
insurer found "them to be first class business people," according
to the complaint.

"The defendants had no reasonable basis to make the statements
contained in the letters because they knew, or should have known,
that SIB did not undergo 'stringent' annual Risk Management
reviews, and that any reviews were not conducted by an outside
audit firm, but rather were conducted by 'one man' audit shop in
Antigua that was dominated by Allen Stanford and Stanford
Financial," the complaint states.

"In the context of these letters, there is no conceivable reason
that Willis and Stanford Financial would supply financial advisors
and investors with information about run-of-the-mill insurance
policies that provided no benefit to investors."

The plaintiffs are opting out of a proposed federal class action
filed in July 2009 against Willis.

Willis did not immediately respond to an email message requesting
comment on September 12 evening.

The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, negligence, aiding, abetting,
conspiracy and violations of the Texas Securities Act and Texas
Insurance Code.

They are represented by Michael J. Stanley with Stanley Frank in
Houston.


ZAIS FINANCIAL: Faces Merger Class Action in Maryland Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zais Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, that a
class action lawsuit has been filed related to the proposed merger
of Sutherland Asset Management Corporation, a Maryland
corporation, with a wholly owned subsidiary of ZFC pursuant to the
terms of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
April 6, 2016, as amended as of May 9, 2016 and August 4, 2016
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, ZAIS Financial
Partners, L.P., ZAIS Merger Sub, LLC, Sutherland and Sutherland
Partners, L.P.

On August 24, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Sean Dexter, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ZAIS Financial Corp., et al. (the "Complaint"), was
filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, Maryland
against the Company, its directors, Sutherland and Sutherland
Partners, L.P., alleging that the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in certain respects regarding the
Sutherland Merger and that the Sutherland parties aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The Complaint
seeks various forms of relief, including to preliminarily and/or
permanently enjoin the consummation of the proposed Sutherland
Merger unless the defendants disclose certain information alleged
to be material and to have been omitted from the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-211251) filed by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and an award of
plaintiff's fees and expenses in connection with this litigation.

On August 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction against the proposed vote of Company shareholders on
the proposed issuance of shares in connection with the Sutherland
Merger. Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in the
Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to
predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on the Company
or the Mergers.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Dropped as Defendant in "Floyd"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order dismissing without
prejudice the case captioned Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff v. Asbestos
Corporation, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05382-JST
(N.D. Calif.), as to Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, which was
erroneously sued as Foster Wheeler Usa Corporation.  A full-text
copy of Judge Tigar's Order dated September 13, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/9NYMDl from Leagle.com.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Michael Fishback,
Esq. -- sfishback@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Cassiana Aaronson, Keller
Fishback & Jackson LLP, Daniel Lee Keller, Esq. --
dkeller@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP & John Bruce
Jackson, Esq. -- bjackson@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback &
Jackson LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Esq.
-- dyoung@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Esq. -- asandoval@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Holly Elizabeth Acevedo, Esq. --
hacevedo@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Keith
Michael Ameele, Esq. -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle
Christian Jackson, Esq. -- Michelle.Jackson@dentons.com -- Dentons
US LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp,
Esq. -- gsharp@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &
Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq. -- jmccormick@foleymansfield.com --
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Denise Fitzpatrick, Esq. --
jennifer.fitzpatrick@armstrongetal.com -- Armstrong & Associates,
LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Esq. -- amy.talarico@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Scott Shaffer, Esq. -- SShaffer@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP & David T. Biderman, Esq. -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP &
Frederick W. Gatt, Esq. -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader &
Berkon LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan,
Esq. -- agalfayan@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz Barnes &
Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq. -- ccrochet@prindlelaw.com
-- Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt,
Esq. -- jmilbrodt@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz Barnes &
Reinholtz LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. --
joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Amy
Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Michael Quinn Eagan,
Jr., Esq. -- %20michael.eagan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Taylor Carl Day, Esq. --
%20taylor.day@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Metalclad Insulation LLC, Defendant, represented by Michelle
Christian Jackson, Dentons US LLP.

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark S.
Kannett, Esq. -- mkannett@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett &
Schweitzer & Shahrad Milanfar, Esq. -- smilanfar@bkscal.com --
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynn
Lanphear, Schiff Hardin LLP & Renee Christine Kelley, Schiff
Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Man Drops Asbestos Claims vs. Crown Cork
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Bryan Harwell of the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Florence Division, granted the joint
motion for dismissal without prejudice the asbestos claims filed
by Jerry L. Matthews, Sr., against Defendant Crown, Cork & Seal
Company USA, Inc.

The case is JERRY L. MATTHEWS, SR., Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, C/A No. 4:16-cv-02934-RBH (D.S.C.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Harwell's Order dated September 15, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/GFbTMU from Leagle.com.

Jerry L Matthews, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by William
Christopher Swett, Motley Rice.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Steven J. Pugh, Esq.
-- spugh@richardsonplowden.com -- Richardson Plowden and Robinson
& Joseph E. Thoensen, Esq. -- jthoensen@richardsonplowden.com --
Richardson Plowden and Robinson.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Mark Hedderman Wall, Esq. -- Mark.Wall@WallTempleton.com -- Elmore
and Wall & Peden Brown McLeod, Jr., Esq. --
Brown.McLeod@WallTempleton.com -- Elmore and Wall.

Research-Cottrell Inc, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Burkoff, Esq. -- dburkoff@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean
Exley and Dunn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Man Ordered to Prosecute Suit vs. Pharmacia
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2016, Howard Milton Moore, et al., filed an action
against multiple Defendants, including the Defendant Pharmacia
LLC, individually and as successor to Monsanto Company.  An
Affidavit of Service filed by the Plaintiffs indicates that this
particular Defendant was served on June 16, 2016. However,
Pharmacia has not made an appearance or otherwise defended this
action, and the Plaintiff appears to have made no effort to
prosecute the action further against this Defendant.

Accordingly, Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, ordered that the Plaintiffs must immediately file an
appropriate motion or otherwise take further action with respect
to Pharmacia LLC.  The Plaintiffs are advised that failure to take
further action will result in the dismissal of this Defendant.

The case is HOWARD MILTON MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCATEL-
LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-
00157-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's
Order dated September 14, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/in4M7a from Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black,
Ward Black, P.A..

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Ericsson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Williamson,
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent
Alan Rosser, Esq. -- brosser@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams,
Wendy Cohen McGraw, Esq. -- wmcgraw@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams, pro hac vice & Emma Claire Merritt, Esq. --
emerritt@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles
Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Couple Drops Claims vs. Air & Liquid
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California issued an order granting parties'
dismissal without prejudice of all claims against Defendant Air &
Liquid Systems Corporation, successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., in case captioned STEPHEN WINDHAM and PAULA WINDHAM,
Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02340-TLN-DB (E.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's Order dated September 9, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/SbOHBB from Leagle.com.

Stephen Windham, Plaintiff, represented by David Robert Donadio,
Brayton & Purcell, LLP.

Stephen Windham, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly Chu, Brayton
Purcell.

Paula Windham, Plaintiff, represented by David Robert Donadio,
Brayton & Purcell, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florida Tightens Reins Proving Causation
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that Florida joined a growing
number of jurisdictions that reject the "any exposure" theory of
proving causation. Variously known as the "cumulative exposure" or
"each and every exposure" theory, it is based on a form of junk
science that cannot meet the Daubert test for the admissibility of
scientific evidence. According to proponents, the actual level of
exposure that a claimant may have had to asbestos doesn't matter.
Instead, a person's asbestos-related disease is caused by any
exposure he or she may have had to an asbestos product that was
above the background level naturally occurring in the environment.

The "any exposure" theory can be difficult to challenge. With it,
plaintiffs proceed without industrial hygienists and avoid any
sort of an exposure assessment. Essentially, plaintiffs can rely
on medical testimony that a disease is consistent with asbestos
exposure, coupled with a bare-bones occupational history that the
plaintiff performed work that is known to expose workers to any
level of asbestos. Plaintiffs' experts opine that since no level
of asbestos is known to be safe, any exposure is a substantial
contributing cause of the disease. This approach can be applied to
any disease, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer,
since all may be caused by exposure to asbestos. The key to a
successful defense is to challenge the expert opinions at the
pretrial stage and preclude the jury from considering this "junk
science."

In Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2133a (September 14,
2016), that is exactly what the defendants did. Unfortunately, the
trial judge allowed all of the plaintiff's experts to testify.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and held that
such opinions could not meet the rigors of the Daubert standard,
which is used by most states and became effective in Florida in
2013. In short, Florida now requires that expert testimony be
based on sufficient facts and be the product of reliable
principles and methods, and that those principles and methods are
applied reliably to the facts of the case. This threshold must be
established to the satisfaction of the trial court before the jury
may hear the expert opinions.

Even though it is based on the federal standard, the Daubert
standard is still fairly new in Florida, so there have not yet
been many published opinions interpreting it. This decision comes
out strongly in support of the trial court's gatekeeper function
and requires the trial courts to critically examine the bases
underlying any expert opinions. It is an important decision that
should have ramifications far beyond causation in asbestos cases.
It can be expected to affect the admissibility of all expert
opinions in every type of case, but particularly in toxic tort
cases. The trial court's decision on these issues will not be
overturned unless it has abused its discretion. Even with this
high standard, the appellate court found the trial judge abused
his discretion by allowing the testimony of plaintiffs' four
experts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Probe Puts Libby Program On Hold
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward O'Brien, writing for MTPR.com, reported that funding for a
Libby asbestos program is now on hold while the federal government
investigates allegations of misspent grant money.

Libby's Asbestos Resource Program helps residents manage asbestos
if they plan to disturb soil on their property. It's funded by a
grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Harrison:

"We've been notified by the county that there have been some
questions about consistencies with federal grant regulations.
That's something our agency is currently evaluating."

Earlier this year Lincoln County commissioners realized some EPA
grant money was paying for legal services. An independent auditor
hired by the county said that's not supposed to happen. County
officials told the EPA about the problem, which triggered the
evaluation.

Agency spokeswoman Jennifer Harrison says the program can continue
to operate, but:

"It's the reimbursements that are going to be subject to the grant
review."

The county has already covered the costs of the legal fees. It's
now waiting to hear back from the EPA about the exact dollar
amount owed to that agency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Cos. Not Liable for Take Home Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for The Associated Press, reported that
Arizona companies have no duty to protect family members from
exposure to toxic materials their employees bring home on their
work clothes, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

In the first ruling of its kind in Arizona, the judges rejected
the contention of survivors of Ernest Quiroz that his father's
employer, Reynolds Metal Co., should be held legally responsible
for the son's mesothelioma, a form of cancer frequently associated
with asbestos exposure, and eventual death.

Appellate Judge Jon Thompson, writing for the unanimous court,
acknowledged that some states have allowed lawsuits based on
"take-home exposure." But Thompson said that's not the way Arizona
laws are written.

Court records show Quiroz lived in his father's house in Maricopa
County from 1952 to 1966, during which time his father worked for
Reynolds Metal. Quiroz moved to California in 1966 for a decade
and then to Michigan until his death in 2014.

In the lawsuit, survivors claim that Quiroz's father was exposed
on numerous occasions to asbestos-containing products and
machinery. That, the claim says, resulted in the release of
respirable asbestos fibers which contaminated the employee's
clothing, tools, car, body and general surroundings.

Quiroz breathed these fibers as result of direct and indirect
contact with those items, the survivors say.

Attorneys for the family contend Reynolds, which has since merged
with Alcoa and now operates under that name, had a duty to avoid
creating hazardous conditions on its property that would cause
injury to people off the property. But Thompson said that's not
the law in Arizona.

"A landowner owes invitees a duty to provide reasonably safe
premises and reasonably safe means of ingress and egress," the
judge wrote. He said that duty generally ends when a person leaves
the property.

Thompson said there is no claim that Quiroz was on the property of
Reynolds or that any injury he suffered was the result of being on
that property.

The appellate judges rejected the claim that there are "reasonable
expectations of the parties and society" to require Reynolds to be
responsible for the effects of the asbestos at its Arizona
operations on others, including family members.



The appellate judges also openly worried about what kind of
precedent it would set to make companies responsible for the
injuries that were the result of second-hand exposure to their
chemicals or toxic products.

They said it could open the door for claims by people who came
into contact with asbestos-tainted clothing in a taxicab, grocery
store, dry cleaner, convenience store or laundromat.

"Appellants offer no way to limit the duty they seek either to
employees' family members or to asbestos exposure," Thompson
wrote.

"Absent these constraints, any company that made or used a
potentially hazardous substance could be liable to anyone who ever
came into contact with an employee who arguably could have carried
said hazardous substance offsite," he continued. "Such a dramatic
expansion of liability would not be compatible with public
policy."

Thompson also brushed aside court rulings from other states that
have allowed lawsuits in cases of take-home exposure.

He acknowledged the Tennessee Supreme Court found Alcoa owed a
duty of care to an employee's daughter who contracted mesothelioma
as a result of regular contact with her father's work clothes.

But Thompson said the law in that state recognizes "a general duty
to refrain from engaging in affirmative acts that a reasonable
person should recognize as involving an unreasonable risk of
causing an invasion of an interest of another, or acts which
involve an unreasonable risk of harm to another."

In Arizona, by contrast, the foreseeability of risk to another is
legally irrelevant in these kind of cases.

Ditto, he said, of similar rulings in New Jersey and elsewhere.
Instead, Thompson said Arizona is more in line with rulings out of
Georgia, New York and Michigan.

Tuesday's court ruling makes no mention of whether Quiroz's father
had any claim against Reynolds. The lead attorney in the lawsuit
did not immediately return calls seeking comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair Woman Blames Cos. for Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a St. Clair County widow is suing dozens of companies,
alleging their negligence led to the death of her husband from
asbestos-related causes.

Donna Washam, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Larry Washam, filed a lawsuit Aug. 30 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Armstrong International Inc.,
Armstrong Pumps Inc., Aurora Pump Co., Borg-Wagner Morse TEC LLC,
et al, alleging negligence in breaching their duty to exercise
reasonable care and caution for the safety of employees working
with the defendants' asbestos containing products.

According to the complaint, on March 12, 2015, Larry Washam first
became aware he had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease. The suit says his exposure to the defendants' products
containing asbestos caused him to develop lung cancer, which
ultimately led to his death Oct. 4, 2015.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos
in their products and failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the safe methods of working with products
containing asbestos.

Donna Washam seeks trial by jury, judgment against each defendant
for at least $50,000 which will fairly compensate for the
decedent's injuries, and additional minimum of $50,000 for her
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages. She is represented
by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-468


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Ct. Ruling Did Not Bring Flood of Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord, reported that though a
2013 state Supreme Court decision might have worried employers
that they'd be dragged into asbestos lawsuits over Workers'
Compensation issues, asbestos attorneys say that it hasn't
happened too often.

In Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., the court said the state's Workers'
Compensation Act, which provided the lone remedy for workplace
injuries, could not be used to bar recovery claims when symptoms
of an employee's asbestos-related disease did not manifest until
after the law's 300-week exposure deadline.

Asbestos-related illnesses have a long latency period, often not
showing up until dozens of years after the initial exposure.

Robert F. Daley, of Robert Peirce & Associates in Pittsburgh,
joined the plaintiff's side when the case reached the Supreme
Court. The case brought by the estate of John Tooey was
consolidated with Spurgeon Landis' case.

"It provides another avenue of relief for mesothelioma victims, in
some instances, against defendants that are their former employers
who may have been negligent," Daley said.

Though, Daley added the ramifications of the decision have not
necessarily been far-reaching.

"It's not every case that has an employer defendant in it, and I
haven't seen much beyond mesothelioma cases, or maybe lung cancer
cases, so it's been limited to asbestos from what I've seen,"
Daley said.

R. Scott Marshall, of the Nemeroff Law Firm in Dallas, concurred
the number of cases with possible employer liability have been
limited since that verdict.

"I understand there have been additional lawsuits filed against
the employer since the Tooey decision. I can't give you an
estimate as to how many, but I don't think it has been a
tremendous number," Marshall said.

"I think it's due in large part to the fact there are so few
mesothelioma cases that are diagnosed every year."

It's not happening at all in states like Illinois, where the state
Supreme Court there ruled in the opposite direction late last year
in Folta v. Ferro Engineering.

In Folta, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled a widow whose husband's
asbestos-related illness manifested more than 40 years after his
last exposure could not collect damages from the employer
allegedly responsible for the exposure.

Mark Behrens, a partner in the Washington, D.C. branch of Shook
Hardy & Bacon and co-chair of the firm's Public Policy Group,
described the decision in Folta as contrasting with that of
Pennsylvania's decision in Tooey, despite the Illinois court being
seen as a fairly liberal judiciary and not as pro-business as the
Pennsylvania court was when the issue was decided.

Behrens termed the results of these individual challenges as "a
mixed bag" and said they differ on both a case-by-case and state-
by-state basis.

"It depends on how the state Workers' Comp laws are written. It
may be that Workers' Comp does cover asbestos in some states,"
Behrens said.

"The Tooey decision comes up because there is a statute that
provided after a certain number of years, the worker would no
longer be able to obtain Workers' Comp. You really would have to
look to the state Workers' Comp laws."

Behrens said he believes the Arkansas Supreme Court is currently
deciding the issue there.

"If Pennsylvania, for instance, had provided a remedy for
asbestos, then you wouldn't have the Tooey decision," he said.

"You wouldn't have people saying if only because of the time cut-
off in the statute, that after a certain period of time, the
workers were no longer able to obtain recovery in Workers' Comp,
which then gave rise to the lawsuit to try to get out of that
system."

Behrens feels the trend of plaintiffs attorneys trying to
establish a method to collect from employers is part of their
long-running effort to find solvent defendants. Dozens of the
companies frequently targeted by asbestos plaintiffs have created
bankruptcy trusts that establish a protocol for paying out claims.

Those who haven't established trusts are left to fight lawsuits in
civil courts, where juries can reach multimillion-dollar verdicts.

Behrens quoted prominent Mississippi plaintiffs attorney Richard
"Dickie" Scruggs, who candidly termed modern asbestos litigation
as "an endless search for a solvent bystander." He later served
prison time after being charged with participating in judicial
bribery schemes.

"One of the trends in the last few years has been that in trying
to identify solvent potential defendants, plaintiffs' lawyers are
challenging the exclusive remedy provision of state (Workers'
Compensation) laws to try to bring employers into the asbestos
litigation," Behrens said.

"The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Tooey case said that,
because Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation statute does not
provide a recovery for occupational diseases that take many years
to develop, such as with asbestos, the legislature must have
intended to allow personal injury cases to fill that gap," Behrens
stated.

"Immunity for employers is congruent with coverage for employees:
when the Workers' Compensation remedy expires, so does the bar
against suing the employer.

"Why is it that the Pennsylvania plaintiffs bar, after 40 years of
asbestos litigation, brings the Tooey case when they do? Why
wasn't it brought 40 years when the asbestos litigation started?
It's because of this trend that plaintiffs lawyers used to focus
on the most culpable companies, the major producers [of asbestos],
until they were forced into bankruptcy."

Daley, meanwhile, stated the topic had been brought before the
state Supreme Court on several other occasions over a period of
years, but just not heard until that particular case.

"I can't speak to why that would be, obviously. But from our point
of view, the reason it took so long is because it just had to work
its way through the court system," he said.

"When the Supreme Court did decide to take a look at it, the
decision that the Supreme Court made, was made. I don't think
there is any particular reason, because the issue has been out
there for longer than a decade."

Marshall speculated the reason behind the Supreme Court's taking
another look at the prospect of pursuit of damages outside
Workers' Compensation law could be due to "a constitutional issue"
plaintiff counsel raised in Tooey, one which he said had not
previously been "fully addressed."

"The issue revolves around a provision in the Pennsylvania State
Constitution, which requires the employer to provide reasonable
compensation for an employee's injury, in return for the employee
foregoing their right to sue the employer," Marshall said.

Daley pointed to the future potential of more Pennsylvania
plaintiffs attempting to utilize the additional avenue of recovery
provided for.

"I think with any mesothelioma case, because of the circumstances
of the development of the disease, you're never going to be within
the [300-week Workers'] Comp window," Daley said.

"And so any practitioner doing mesothelioma work is obviously
aware of Landis and Tooey, and I'm certain those practitioners
investigate former employers and in some instances, decide to
litigate against them."

Marshall agreed with his colleague.

"Mesothelioma is a very long latency disease that takes years and
years to develop and manifest," Marshall said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jury Reaches Defense Verdicts
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that a St. Louis jury reached defense verdicts for three
defendants in an asbestos lawsuit alleging take-home exposure.

The trial took nearly a month, beginning on Aug. 15 and concluding
on Sept. 9 with three defense verdicts in favor of defendants Ford
Motor Company, Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Honeywell
International.

Judge Steven Russell Ohmer presided over the trial.

Ford Motor Company was represented by Rodney Loomer of Turner Reid
in Springfield, Mo.

Honeywell was represented by Anthony Springfield of Polsinelli PC
in Kansas City, Mo.

Volkswagen was represented by Tracy Jon Cowan of Hawkins Parnell
Thackston & Young in St. Louis.

Plaintiff Donna Harrison filed her complaint on May 27, 2015,
alleging she developed mesothelioma from take-home exposure to
asbestos. She claims she breathed in asbestos fibers from family
members' clothing.

She was represented by Carson Menges of Flint & Associates in Glen
Carbon.

St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1522-CC09759


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Air Force Mechanic's Widow Sues Dozens
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a widow is suing dozens of companies, alleging their
negligence led to the death of her husband from asbestos exposure.

American Optical Corp., Ameron International Corp., Archer-
Daniels-Midland Co., Armstrong International Inc., et al, asbestos
products manufacturers, citing alleged insufficient measures were
taken to prevent injuries.

Carmen Soy, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of John Soy, deceased filed a lawsuit Aug. 23 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against American Optical Corp., Ameron
International Corp., Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Armstrong
International Inc., et al, alleging failure to exercise due care
and caution for the safety of John Soy.

According to the complaint, during the course of John Soy's
employment, beginning in 1957 as a U.S. Air Force weapons
mechanic, he was exposed to, inhaled and/or absorbed large amount
of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working
with. On Jan. 15, 2015, the suit says, he first became aware that
he had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, which
ultimately lead to his death April 4, 2016.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos
in their products, failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions and failed to conduct tests on the asbestos-
containing products they manufactured.

Carmen Soy seeks trial by jury, compensation of more than $50,000
from each defendant, plus compensation for her husband's injuries
of more than $50,000. She is represented by attorneys Randy L.
Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-448


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Died of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bury Free Press reported that a Pakenham man made a statement
before his death in which he spoke about exposure to asbestos
which went on to cause his fatal condition, an inquest has heard.

Brian Buckle, 75, died at his home in Fen Road, on May 16, the
inquest at Bury St Edmunds was told on Monday.

A post-mortem examination confirmed an earlier diagnosis that Mr
Buckle, a retired painter and decorator, died as a result of
mesothelioma, a condition associated with asbestos.

In his statement, Mr Buckle said during his five-year
apprenticeship he swept up after other tradesmen, sometimes
resulting in clouds of asbestos dust.

Later, he said he worked close to carpenters who were sawing up
sheets of asbestos and the resulting dust was 'impossible to
avoid'.

He described working in boiler rooms where pipes were lagged with
asbestos and rubbing down asbestos lined walls at a laboratory in
Haverhill before painting them.

"I was never warned of the dangers of asbestos and never provided
with a mask or other protection," he said.

Assistant Suffolk Coroner Nigel Parsley said Mr Buckle's family
described him as a quiet man who had purchased an old Ford Zephyr
-- the same as the first car he and his wife had owned -- to use
in his retirement but had only been able to drive it a few times.

Mr Parsley recorded a conclusion Mr Buckle's death was due to an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landlord Accused of Illegal Asbestos Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Glavin, writing for ABC6.com, reported that a New Bedford
landlord, who owns and operates dozens of properties, will now pay
$100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General's
Office back in October 2012.

The lawsuit alleges Ronald Oliveira of Acushnet allowed
contractors to perform illegal asbestos work on four properties he
owned and operated in the city.  The renovations risked exposing
the public and his workers to harmful health risks associated with
asbestos.

Krystle Matos moved into her home on 231 Pleasant Street, back in
2014. She bought the home from Oliveira.

"As soon as I woke up, I saw it on Facebook. I was like 'Woah, I
know him. He's the person I bought my house from,'" Matos said
after hearing about the lawsuit online.

ABC6 broke the news that her home was one of four in the city
involved in the lawsuit. It accuses Oliveira of breaking asbestos
safety protocol while doing construction work on those properties,
dating back to as early as 2009.

"I was like what the heck! Hopefully it's not one of my
properties! But obviously now I know it is," said Matos.

The work on Matos' home was done in the basement in July of 2013,
right before she bought it. Contractors reportedly broke asbestos-
containing ceiling tiles, and left them sitting there for a month,
putting the public and workers at a very high health risk.

"Everything was clean when we got here, so I'm definitely going to
have someone inspect the house for anything that can cause harm to
my daughter," said Matos.

The other homes in New Bedford include:

   * A triple-decker on 11 Merrill Street, where Oliveira's
contractors began cleaning and painting asbestos-containing
shingles in 2009.  The contractors were reportedly not wearing
protective equipment.

   * A three-family house on 197 Weld Street where contractors cut
and broke asbestos siding and demolished a second floor front
deck, and left the debris in the dumpster. This allegedly occurred
in January 2011.

And in March and April of 2011, Oliveira reportedly arranged for
contractors to renovate the exterior of a three-family house at 8
Harmony Street, which was covered in asbestos-containing siding.
Contractors broke the siding and left the debris to dry.

"I wish he was more concerned, or caring about his property," said
Matos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flint Law Adds Attys to Expand Asbestos Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Helenthal, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that Flint Law Firm LLC recently announced the addition of two
asbestos litigators and a new associate, stating the additions
signal "new growth in all areas of the firm."

The two new partners are Troyce Wolf and Demetrios Zacharopoulos.
The law firm has offices in Glen Carbon, Paducah, Dallas and
Baltimore.

Wolf, who heads the Dallas office, specializes in asbestos
litigation, toxic torts and personal injury law, and is credited
with securing jury verdicts in excess of $100 million. He is a
graduate of Southern Methodist University and was admitted to the
Texas Bar in 1988. He has been selected as a Texas Super Lawyer
for 10 years.

Zacharopoulos, who works in the firm's Baltimore office, graduated
from the University of Maryland, is a member of the State Bar of
Maryland and is also admitted to practice in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, as well as the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Flint Law also added an associate, Tyler Wilke, who had headed the
Child Support Division in the Madison County State's Attorney
Office.

"Many of the cases the firm handles involve those who have
suffered injuries from defective products, pharmaceuticals, and
from exposure to asbestos," firm spokesman Keith Huckabay told the
Record.

He said the firm now has more than 60 employees to focus on
"catastrophic" cases.

"By focusing solely on catastrophic injury, terminal illness and
wrongful death claims, Flint Law Firm LLC is a leader at
uncovering the critical evidence required to recover maximum
compensation for its clients," he said.

Asbestos exposure continues to be a problem in the United States,
Huckabay said, with several industries using the product as late
as 2001. Industry areas most likely to have used asbestos are wide
ranging, he said, and include pipe and ductwork insulation; home
and building insulation; cement; fire-proofing materials; ceiling,
wall and floor tiles; soundproofing materials; roofing materials;
paints or textured paints; drywall joint compounds; pumps; brake
pads and linings; clutches and gaskets; industrial materials; and
boilers, furnaces and furnace doors.

He said a consumer doesn't necessarily have to get cancer from a
product in order to seek damages.

"A diagnosis of asbestosis does not mean that cancer will
necessarily develop, but it does confirm asbestos exposure and
damage to the respiratory system," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staffordshire Worker Died from Asbestos Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Staffordshire Newsletter reported that a man who had worked at
Rugeley Power Station died after being exposed to asbestos dust,
an inquest heard.

Alan Ernest Walker, 71, of Yew Tree Road, Brereton, died at County
Hospital on June 11, after being diagnosed with asbestosis and
lung cancer in May 2015.

An inquest held in Cannock heard Mr Walker had worked as an
industrial engineer at Rugeley Power Station from the 1970s for
about 20 years.

He had been admitted to Katharine House Hospice after being
diagnosed with cancer. He had received a pay out after it was
proved to have originated from exposure to asbestos. He had been
admitted to hospital from the hospice the same day he had died. He
was short of breath and had palpitations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Ct. Flips $8MM Asbestos Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Florida appellate court has
reversed an $8 million verdict entered in an asbestos case,
ordering an entry of a directed verdict for Crane Co. and a new
trial on all issues as to R.J. Reynolds after finding, in part,
that the trial court erred when it did not exclude the testimony
of several plaintiff experts, one of which, the court opined,
failed to support his methodology with any data.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Hotelier Dies From Lung Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim MacFarlan, writing for Bath Chronicle, reported that a retired
hotelier from Saltford died just six days after being diagnosed
with lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos throughout her
life.

Judith Mansfield passed away at her home in Brockley Road in the
early hours of June 25.

The 70-year-old grew up in a prefab house which may have contained
asbestos insulation, Avon Coroner's Court heard on September 15.

She also worked as a dinner lady and hotelier in environments with
asbestos-lined pipes.

A statement from Dr James Walters, a consultant in respiratory
medicine at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, was read out by
coroner's assistant Jane Grant.

In it he said: "I met Mrs Mansfield at my pleural clinic on June
19. She had increasing breathlessness and a large collection of
fluid around her left lung.

"She lived in a prefab building as a child and then as a dinner
lady and working in hotels she was around asbestos-covered pipes."

Mrs Mansfield, originally from Bridport, Dorset, was diagnosed
with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lung lining almost
exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos.

She was offered chemotherapy but declined and died six days later
at home.

Assistant coroner for Avon Mfanwy Buckeridge said: "Although
Judith Mansfield couldn't remember any specific exposure to
asbestos she could recall working in environments where it was
present -- in schools, kitchens, hotels and possibly a prefab
house."

Ms Buckeridge recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects $8-Mil. Verdict in Asbestos Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
News4Jax.com reported that pointing to problems with expert
witnesses, an appeals court rejected an $8 million verdict in a
case filed by a man who said he suffered mesothelioma because of
exposure to asbestos in cigarette filters and in other products.

A panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered a new trial
for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and a "directed" verdict in favor of
Crane Co., a manufacturing company.

It ruled against Richard DeLisle, who won the verdict in the
Broward County case.

DeLisle alleged that he was exposed to asbestos in filters of Kent
cigarettes he smoked in the 1950s.

R.J. Reynolds is a successor company to the manufacturer of Kent
cigarettes.

He also alleged exposure in the 1960s in a workplace through sheet
gaskets used by Crane Co., a valve and pump manufacturer, the
ruling said.

The challenge to the verdict and $8 million award, which also
affected two other companies, focused heavily on expert witnesses
used by DeLisle in the case.

In a 21-page ruling, the appeals court said testimony of three of
DeLisle's expert witnesses should not have been admitted and that
the circuit court "failed to properly exercise its gatekeeping
function" in dealing with the experts.

"In sum, the trial court's gatekeeping role is not a passive
role," said the ruling, written by appeals-court Judge Martha
Warner and joined by Chief Judge Cory Ciklin and Judge Mark
Klingensmith. "The court should affirmatively prevent imprecise,
untested scientific opinion from being admitted. The expert must
explain his or her methodology and how it is applied to the data
relevant to the case."

While ordering a new trial for R.J. Reynolds, the court said Crane
Co. should receive a directed verdict because testimony from one
of the expert witnesses was the only evidence linking the
manufacturer to DeLisle's mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Worker Awarded Nearly $13MM
----------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that when
spring was in the air at Florida Power & Light Co.'s Turkey Point
power plant in the 1970s, so was asbestos, according to a former
employee.

The off-peak seasons of spring and fall meant major maintenance at
the Homestead plant, including stripping large amounts of
asbestos-filled insulation from equipment, Richard Batchelor
claims.

"It's just raining down on people," said Batchelor's attorney,
Juan Bauta of the Ferraro Law Firm in Miami.

After Batchelor was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2015,
he filed a lawsuit against 26 companies that might be liable for
exposing him to asbestos, including FPL, his former employer.

FPL was shielded from litigation by workers' compensation laws,
and claims against all but one of the other defendants were
dismissed or settled. The last company standing was the
construction and civil engineering firm Bechtel Corp., which
oversaw maintenance at Turkey Point as a contractor - a role Bauta
said made the premises liability claim challenging.

"What we had to argue was that when Bechtel is on the property
doing these giant overhauls, these shutdowns, they then control
the premises," said Bauta, who tried the case with his colleague
Gabriel Saade. "I don't think it's ever been done before."

The novel approach paid off Aug. 30 when a Miami-Dade jury found
Bechtel liable for nearly $13 million in damages to Batchelor and
his wife.

Bechtel, represented at trial by Frances Spinelli of Evert
Weathersby Houff in Atlanta, argued it was not responsible for
Batchelor's health because he worked for FPL.

The company also argued Batchelor could not trace his disease to
asbestos exposure at Turkey Point, where he was an instrument
technician starting in 1974. The mesothelioma could have stemmed
from Batchelor's service in the Navy or work he did later in his
career, according to Bechtel.

Bauta said Batchelor had minor contact with joint compound at
other points in his working life--but he argued it was nothing
compared to the torrent of asbestos that allegedly fell at Turkey
Point during maintenance seasons.

And although ship records from Batchelor's time in the military
were lost, Bauta told the jury that a nuclear submarine is one of
the cleanest environments in the Navy.

"If there was asbestos in the air there, it would be filtered,"
Bauta said. "Because these guys are breathing the same air over
and over again, it's being cleaned and re-oxygenated so the boat
doesn't have to come out of the water."

But Bauta's main focus at trial before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge
William Thomas was the idea that Bechtel had a responsibility to
look out for FPL employees such as Batchelor.

Batchelor testified that on a job site, workers looked out for
each other's safety, regardless of who worked for which company.
But when Bauta asked Bechtel's corporate representative whether he
would expect FPL to look out for Bechtel workers and vice versa,
he gave a different response.

Miami attorneys won a nearly $13 million verdict tied to asbestos
exposure at Florida Power & Light Co.'s Turkey Point power plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Asbestos Fibers Can Move in Soil
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that a new study
shows asbestos fibers can move through sand and soil, a
breakthrough that challenges current remediation strategies for
preventing exposure to the cancer-causing mineral.

Geologist Jane Willenbring of the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography at the University of California San Diego leads the
ongoing study. The first phase tested the long-held belief that
asbestos waste piles are locked in place when capped by soil.

Willenbring's postdoctoral researcher Sanjay Mohanty of the
University of Pennsylvania discovered that when organic acids coat
asbestos fibers, the threads can travel through sand and soil.

"This is something that can happen in soils, where you have
organic acids that are created from plants, fungi and also
bacteria," Willenbring told Asbestos.com. "These organic acids can
coat the outside of the fibers and actually change the mobility of
the fibers."

Large amounts of asbestos waste buried in the environment have
concerned scientists and environmentalists for years, but
surprisingly, few have explored how asbestos fibers contaminate
groundwater.

"They find it in water, and they know where the asbestos is, so
they can assume transport," Willenbring explained. "But this is
the first time anyone has put a known amount of asbestos in the
top of a soil column and actually saw some asbestos coming out."

Prolonged exposure to asbestos may lead to mesothelioma, a rare
and incurable cancer.

Willenbring presented her findings in August at the 2016 American
Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia. The National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences funded the project.

The EPA, Superfunds and Managing Asbestos Contamination

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to assess and fund the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites, including those polluted with asbestos.

Areas heavily contaminated by any hazardous chemicals or other
pollutants are called Superfund sites.

The National Priorities List (NPL) includes the highest priority
Superfunds. There are currently 1,338 federal and general sites on
the list, 13 of which are asbestos-related sites.

Willenbring and her team took soil samples from the BoRit asbestos
site in Ambler, Pennsylvania. Kane Core Inc., the property's
owner, dumped asbestos-containing materials from a nearby
manufacturing plant at the six-acre site from the early 1900s to
the late 1960s.

EPA reports show the waste pile is nearly 25-feet high. Federal
officials added the site to the NPL in April 2009. Crews capped
the entire site with soil in 2015.

Capping is still regarded as the safest remediation strategy for
asbestos. Hauling materials away could prove more dangerous, and
controlled on-site incineration is far too costly.

"Really, the EPA did the best that they could, and it's so much
better than the way it was before," Willenbring said about
asbestos soil capping. "This research is to try and understand how
you can do things better, which is something you always strive
for."

Understanding of Asbestos Mobility Is Still Limited

In 1977, the EPA released a report stating "asbestos migration
through soil will not be a problem of any significance."

Since then, science and research shows colloids -- or a mixture in
which one substance is divided into colloidal particles and
dispersed throughout a second substance -- move through soil,
carrying other harmful contaminants with them. Despite this, the
study points out the understanding of asbestos mobility remains
limited.

"Colloids actually don't really settle [in water], because the
small, tiny movements of the water around them keep the colloids
in suspension," Willenbring explained. "Asbestos fibers can
actually behave quite a bit like colloids."

Willenbring explained microscopic asbestos fibers and other
harmful substances, such as radioactive waste, can attach
themselves to colloids.

"When we started this project, we thought that surely someone
would have looked at whether asbestos can move through soil,"
Willenbring said. "Also, what are the controls? Not all soils are
created equal. So what are the geochemical triggers that might
cause asbestos fibers to be released from the soil?"

Willenbring stressed that while asbestos fibers moved through the
BoRit soil samples in lab tests, it doesn't necessarily mean the
fibers at the Superfund site in Ambler are mobile or that they
currently exist in the area's groundwater.

"There's no evidence that it's migrating through the soil in
natural conditions," she said.

Findings of the Asbestos in Soil Study

Researchers have worked on the ongoing lab portion of the study
for a couple years. It started with a sand column experiment to
determine whether untreated asbestos fibers can move through sand.

Conclusion: They could not.

However, the team discovered asbestos fibers moved through the
sand column when they were coated with fulvic acid, humic acid and
other natural organic matter. Researchers later ran a similar test
using the BoRit soil samples.

"We found that if we coated these fibers in organic acids, we
could actually get the asbestos fibers to move through the soil,"
Willenbring said.

She also pointed out the unique aspect ratio of asbestos fibers:
More long than narrow. Because of their shape, researchers
suspected asbestos fibers tangled with each other in the soil
instead of moving freely through it.

What's Next for Researchers?

Willenbring and her team continue researching new directions for
the study.

One idea: Figure out how to regulate the amount of organic acids
in the piles to limit or decrease the amount of movement.

"We could do something else to the piles to affect their
geochemistry so we don't get transport," she said.

Willenbring said one option may involve altering the fabric used
between the asbestos materials and the soil to affect the pile's
geochemistry.

Another key may lie in keeping plants alive on the soil above
these capped piles. Soil ecologist Brenda Casper is working with
Willenbring and others to determine which native grasses best hold
the top soil.

"If you don't have plants on the surface of the piles, then you
have more erosion of that cap, and eventually, it will just have
the same problem again," Willenbring explained.

While grasses and native plants could prove beneficial,
Willenbring said trees growing on or around the piles are
problematic if they fall because their extensive root systems
could unearth buried asbestos materials.

"In a place like Pennsylvania, you often have trees come in even
if you don't want them," she said. "What you basically have to do
is mow the surface so the seedlings don't get a chance to take
hold."

Willenbring also pointed out that not all soils are created equal,
so one remediation strategy at a site like BoRit could have
different outcomes in places like Libby, Montana, the site of the
largest, longest-running asbestos cleanup project in U.S. history.

"We don't yet have soil from Libby, but it would be great to get
some," Willenbring said. "Everyone is worried about Libby, and we
are too."

Willenbring used Libby as an example of how movement of asbestos
fibers might not be a bad thing, in some cases. If the fibers move
to groundwater, in most cases that would move them deeper and
deeper into the ground, decreasing the risk of exposure.

The problem then comes when people decide to do things like
irrigate, which can make a pathway between the subsurface and the
surface where when the water dries out, it can lead to asbestos
inhalation hazards.

"That's the kind of thing that worries us and why we're interested
in finding ways to help."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Revives Dust Claims vs. CBS
-----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reported that a jury should
decide whether dust blown off of mechanical parts made by the
former Westinghouse Electric Corp during repairs several decades
ago contained asbestos or not, a federal appeals court held on
Tuesday.

The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
part of a ruling last year in favor of CBS Corp, the last
remaining defendant in a lawsuit filed in 2009 on behalf of the
estate of Howard Frankenberger, an Indiana pipefitter who died of
asbestos-related lung disease in 2005.



                            *********


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  * * *