CAR_Public/161010.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 10, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 202




                            Headlines

1-800-CONTACTS INC: Faces "Stillings" Suit Over Sherman Act Breach
3M CO: Class Action Over Firefighting Chemical Agent Has No Merit
AECOM: Oct. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ALLSTATE: Faces Class Action Over Limited Flood Coverage
APPLE INC: Exploding iPhone 7 Reported Amid Touch Disease Case

AT&T: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Spam Text Class Action
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Faces Suit Over Arsenic Poisoning
BANKRATE INC: February 6, 2017 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BARNES & NOBLE: Court Dismisses PIN Pad Litigation
BELK INC: Sales Team Managers Class Certified in "Halleen" Suit

BRASKEM SA: Enters Into Talks with SEC Amid Shareholder Suit
BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Sanitary Sewer Users Withdraw Class Action
BULLY'S SPORTS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CARBYLAN THERAPEUTICS: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Calif.
CARMAX INC: Court Approves Settlement of Remaining Areso Claims

CARMAX INC: Defending 3 Wage and Hour Class Actions
CENTER FOR HEALTH: "Wolfdang" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
CEPHALON INC: 3rd Circ. Decertified Modafinil Class Action
CNX GAS: Court Denies Request for Jurisdictional Discovery
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Potential Securities Violations Probed

CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN: Court Certifies Class in "Murillo" Suit
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Pay All Wages & OT, "Martinez" Suit Says
DBKW 1: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Compensation Under Cal. Labor Code
DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Shawnee Landfill
DEUTSCHE BANK: Filed Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

DEUTSCHE BANK: Filed Demurrer and Motion to Strike
DIRECTHEALTH.COM: Anaheim Man Sues Over Unsolicited Class
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Court Dismisses "Estler" Suit Over Sales Tax
EDDIE BAUER: "Heredia" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
ELBERT, CO: Dismissal of "Onxy", "Quinn" Suits Affirmed

EMPIRE TODAY: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Bonuses
FAMILY SLEEP: Court Rules on Competing Summary Judgment Bids
FIAT CHRYSLER: Must Defend Against Investor Suit Over Recalls
FIRST NBC: Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Remain Pending
FUNCTION(X) INC: Mule Sues BOD Over Fiduciary Breaches

GENKI SUSHI: Hepatitis A Outbreak Spreads to 37 Flights
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement
GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action For Reusing Insulin Injector
GUAM: Faces Class Action Over Denial of H-2b Visas
GUAM MEMORIAL: Judge Dismisses Part of Migrant's Tax Refund Case

H&H FRANCHISING: Sued by Memberselect Over "Pascuzzi" Suit Claims
ILLINOIS TOOL: Court Denies Motion for Sanctions in "Orozco"
IRADJ SHARIM: Accused by "Rancan" Suit of Sexual Harassment
JACKSONVILLE, FL: Firefighters Lose Consent Decree Issue Appeal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Bedtime Baby Products Class Action

JOY GLOBAL: Class Suits Seek to Block Vote on Merger Deal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Home Inspection Fee Lawsuits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Bellino" Suit Denied
KB HOME: Court Approves Final Settlement Terms in Bejenaru Case
LIFELOCK INC: Court Grants Final OK of $68MM "Ebarle" Settlement

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Suit
LIVE NATION: Faces False Advertising Class Action
LLOYD & MCDANIEL: Court Okays Portion of Plaintiff Counsel Fees
MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Sands Appeals From Ruling in "Melendres" Suit
MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION: Union's Bid to Certify Denied

MDC PARTNERS: Shareholder Lawsuit in New York Dismissed
MDL 2196: Bassett Received $1,428,000 Cash from Settlement
MERCK & CO: 3rd Cir. to Tackle American Pipe Precedence
METALAST SURFACE: Investors File Class Action Over Fraud
MIDCITY FINANCIAL: Legal Battle Over Brookland Manor Heats Up

MUTUAL SECURITIES: Court Knocks Down Portion of "Milliner" Claims
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Appeal in Antitrust Class Action
NATURE'S WAY: Must Face Class Action Over "Healthy" Coconut Oil
NOTIS GLOBAL: Final Fairness Hearing Continued to Oct. 17
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hiring Discrimination Claims

PENSION BENEFIT: Page Counsel's Bid for Additional Fees Denied
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defending Consolidated Action in Dallas
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Judge Permits Researcher to Amend Lawsuit
PROMPT DELIVERY: "Davis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
PROVIDENCE AND WORCESTER: 4 Class Actions Challenge Merger Deal

PURE STORAGE: Shareholder Class Action Filed in California
QUANELL X: Activist Faces Class Action Lawsuit
RAPTOR PHARMA: Being Sold too Cheaply, Lawsuit Says
RITE AID: 10 Stockholder Class Actions Pending as of Aug. 27
RITE AID: Discovery Ongoing in Indergit Class Action

RITE AID: Status Conference in Hall Case Scheduled for Nov. 18
RUST-OLEUM: Class Action Over Deck Coating Products Pending
SERES THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SINO-FOREST CORP: Settlement Reached in Canadian Class Suit
SKYHOP GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Zurita" Class Suit Alleges

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MESSENGERS: Baskerville Sues Over Unpaid OT
SOUTHERN LAND: Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in "Alyn" Denied
SOUTHERN TELECOM: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in D. Mass.
SUN LIFE: ECCC Requests Suspension of Trading
SUN LIFE: ECCC Seeks Equity Lien Class Action Participants

SUN LIFE: ECCC Issues Notice of Domestic, Int'l Equity Lien
TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Definition of Class in "Meta" Suit
TIN INC: November 15 Drywall Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
TOSHIBA CORP: Oct. 11 Deadline Set for Views on LCD Settlement
TOSHIBA CORP: Oct. 11 Deadline Set for CRT Settlement Views

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Permits Rosenzweig to Amend Complaint
UNITED STATES: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Lawyers' Spying Case vs NSA
URANIUM ENERGY: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Junked
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Class Action Alleges Overcharging for Drugs
UTAH: Suit Over Delayed Defendant Treatment Certified

WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Misleads Doctoral Students, Suit Says
WARREN RESOURCES: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: Bronstein Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Shareholder Suit After Fake-Accounts Scandal
WESTLAND, MI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Water & Sewer Rates

* Companies Beef Up Legal Team to Avoid Class Action, Disputes
* Third Circuit Creates Framework for Analyzing Numerosity
* Two Sides to GST Class Action Against Developers


                            *********


1-800-CONTACTS INC: Faces "Stillings" Suit Over Sherman Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAM STILLINGS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. 1-800-CONTACTS, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-05400-JSC (N.D.
Cal., September 21, 2016), is brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers, who within the past four years purchased
contact lenses online from the Defendant, alleging it overcharged
the Plaintiff and the class by charging supracompetitive prices
for the contact lenses that it sold to them.

800-Contacts was able to charge these prices only by restraining
and suppressing competition for the online sale of contact lenses
in the United States in violation of the Sherman Act, Ms.
Stillings alleges.

800-Contacts is a corporation formed under the laws of the United
States that maintains its headquarters in Draper, Utah.  800-
Contacts is an online retailer that sells contact lenses online to
customers located across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Markham, Esq.
          Dorn Bishop, Esq.
          Jason Eliaser, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.
          550 West C Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 221-4400
          E-mail: wm@markhamlawfirm.com
                  db@markhamlawfirm.com
                  je@markhamlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, P.C.
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com


3M CO: Class Action Over Firefighting Chemical Agent Has No Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
April Bamburg, writing for Penn Record, reports that eight
individuals have signed on to a class action lawsuit alleging that
3M Company and several other defendants should be held responsible
for injuries they sustained from water contaminated when others
used the aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, that 3M has sold in
the past.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 15. The lawsuit against 3M,
Angus Fire, The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Protection Company,
Chemguard and National Foam has no merit, William A. Brewer III
told the Pennsylvania Record. Brewer is a partner at Brewer,
Attorneys & Counselor, and serves as counsel for 3M.

This is not the first time that 3M has been sued for injuries
allegedly caused by the foam product used in firefighting, but
Brewer said that 3M has not sold the product in a decade.

"AFFF is a product that was used by the U.S. military and
departments of defense around the world because it saves lives --
which likely explains why this product remains in use
approximately a decade after 3M exited the sale of it," Brewer
said.

"In any event, we believe these claims lack merit. 3M sold these
products with instructions regarding their safe use and disposal."

The U.S. Navy purchased the product for firefighting use in ships
and other locations, including at the former Willow Grove Naval
Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Horsham and the former Naval Air
Warfare Center in Warminster.

The chemicals in this firefighting suppressant include
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS), which, when used on military bases in the area, allegedly
washed into the drinking water, which led to alleged health issues
for residents of several communities where these products were
used.

AFFF works to block oxygen when used in a firefighting situation.

"3M has prevailed in similar cases," Brewer said. "In a recent
matter, the plaintiff dismissed its claims against 3M and agreed
to pay a significant portion of the company's legal fees for
having brought the case."

The plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit include Hanah Bates;
Michael S. Bridges; Ann Marie Kuter; Kelley Liott; Lynda Mills, as
parent and natural guardian of a minor identified as S.M.;
Jennifer Rock; and Carolyn Sippel.

The plaintiffs seek an order from the court that would require the
defendants to create a testing protocol for wells and install
filtration devices on wells that test positive for contaminants,
and also ask for damages, court costs and other relief that the
court may impose.

"3M will vigorously defend this new lawsuit and its record of
responsible behavior," Brewer said. "3M is proud of its record of
responsible stewardship in connection with its manufacturing and
sale of AFFF."


AECOM: Oct. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased AECOM (NYSE:ACM)
securities between February 11, 2015 and August 15, 2016.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/aecom.There is no cost or obligation
to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) AECOM engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
business practices (ii) AECOM lacked effective internal controls
over financial reporting; (iii) AECOM overstated the benefits of
its acquisition of URS Corp.; (iv) AECOM overstated the Company's
free cash flow per share; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
AECOM's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in AECOM you have until October 31, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong,
Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at
212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/aecom.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.  Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


ALLSTATE: Faces Class Action Over Limited Flood Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sacheli, writing for Windsor Star, reports that a Windsor
lawyer, shocked to learn Allstate is capping his flood damage
payout at $5,000, is launching a class-action lawsuit against the
insurance company.

Anthony Grassi says he suffered about $50,000 in water damage to
the 1,800 square-foot finished basement of his Orchard Park home
in Lakeshore.  He had no idea until he called to make a claim that
his new policy had such limited water-damage coverage for homes in
his area code.

"They treated me like an idiot," Mr. Grassi said of his call to
the manager of the Allstate's office in Tecumseh.  Four days
later, he's still waiting for the company to call back or dispatch
a restoration company.

Mr. Grassi said the home, on Chambers Drive, had five inches of
sewage and storm water in the basement, despite having two sump
pumps running.  The carpeting, flooring and drywall got soaked.
Mr. Grassi said he is fortunate he had moved out of the house
before the flood, removing all the furniture that had been in the
basement. The house is for sale, with any hope of finding a buyer
now dim at best.

"It stinks like hell," Mr. Grassi said of the basement.

Mr. Grassi is living with his partner in a home nearby.  The
basement of that home flooded, too.  Mr. Grassi said the insurance
company for that home, Aviva, responded immediately.

"It's like a tale of two cities," he said.  "The basement's been
stripped, sanitized and it's ready to be repaired."

Mr. Grassi said the Allstate manager told him $5,000 is the
"industry standard" for basement flooding.  Yet the home he shares
with his partner has $50,000 in coverage for basement flooding.
Both homes are in the same postal code, he said.

Mr. Grassi said he used to have insurance through the Canadian Bar
Association.  Recently, when he switched his automobile insurance
to Allstate, he was convinced to move his house insurance as well.
He said he showed the agent his existing policy to make sure his
new coverage would be the same.  "I was told, not only would I get
a better rate, I would get better coverage, too."

An appraiser sent out to assess the home set the replacement value
at $898,000.

Mr. Grassi said he has spoken to other Allstate customers who were
similarly shocked to learn of the low coverage.

"I'm a lawyer and I am used to dealing with documents," he said.
"I had no idea at all that I had such little protection for this
type of loss."

Mr. Grassi said he thinks a class-action lawsuit is his last
resort.  "Individually, we are helpless to force Allstate to do
what is right in this situation.  However, together, we can
harness the power of the class-action lawsuit to compel Allstate
and get justice."

Local municipalities reported on Oct. 3 they had logged 3,100
flood-related calls as of Oct. 1.


APPLE INC: Exploding iPhone 7 Reported Amid Touch Disease Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corazon Victorino, writing for International Business Times,
reports that a college student from Burlington County, N.J. has
claimed that his iPhone 6s Plus exploded inside his back pocket.
The student was identified as Darin Hlavaty, who is claiming that
the iPhone 7 predecessor burned a hole in his jeans.

"Right as class was starting, my phone started smoking in my
pocket.  It was a fire.  I felt this crazy, hot burning in my
leg," Mr. Hlavaty recounted the incident to ABC on Oct. 1.  "It
was super hot, so I flinched, grabbed it, threw it on the ground.
Had to kick it because it was one fire."

Mr. Hlavaty's classmate, Rebecca Bookbinder, said the entire class
was shocked when smoke began to come out of the former's pocket.
Bookbinder added that it was in the middle of a class when the
Apple device combusted.

The iPhone caught fire though the smartphone was not being
charged, as per PhoneArena.  In contrast, Samsung's faulty Galaxy
Note 7 was found to be prone to exploding when it is connected to
a charger.  It was also found out that Mr. Hlavaty's 6-month-old
iPhone 6s Plus had a crack in it prior to the incident.  Thus, the
tech site suspects that this may or may not be the root cause of
the disaster that took place.

Complex has learned that though campus public safety contained the
situation, the room still reeked of the smoke that the device
emitted, forcing the teacher and the students to transfer to
another room for the remaining time of the period.

The news about the exploding iPhone 6s Plus comes amid reports
that class action lawsuits were filed against the Cupertino giant
in Canada due to the notorious malfunctioning phenomenon that
persists among older iPhones known as "touch disease."

"Touch disease" is a term coined by iFixit to refer to the loss of
touch sensory functionality of an iPhone when it is handled
roughly or dropped.  The touch sensors fail to respond to touch
commands in this case, according to Patently Apple.

The lawsuits were filed by Merchant Law Group in September,
claiming that the tech giant has knowledge of the defect, but it
still failed to address the problem.  The lawsuit also stipulated
that Apple "knowingly and intentionally concealed" the defect from
customers.

"As they began to have more and more complaints and people were
going to them -- and we've had significant numbers of people
contact us -- they brushed it under the rug," lawyer Tony Merchant
was quoted as saying by CBC News.

Apple has yet to comment on both issues as of late.


AT&T: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Spam Text Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
AT&T cannot use an "unusually" broad clause in its service
agreement to compel arbitration for a class action suit filed by a
customer who received unsolicited text messages and calls from the
company, a federal judge has ruled.

Eastern District Judge Frederic Block said "no reasonable person"
would think that checking a box stating they agree with the
company's terms and conditions for phone service would obligate
them to arbitrate every potential dispute with the company.
"If a company wishes to bind its customers to something broader,
it must take steps to secure something that a reasonable person
would understand as an objective expression of his or her
agreement," Judge Block said on Sept. 30 in Wexler v. AT&T Corp.,
15-cv-0686.

According to court papers, in 2008, Eve Wexler or someone using
her account ordered an iPhone and wireless service from AT&T
Mobility, a subsidiary of AT&T.

To complete the order, a customer would check a box indicating
approval of the company's service agreement, which contains an
arbitration clause stating the customer agrees to arbitrate any
claims "whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud,
misrepresentation or any other legal theory."  The agreement
states that the clause is to be "broadly interpreted."

In 2014, Ms. Wexler says she began receiving texts and calls
regarding the company's U-Verse internet and TV service.  She
alleges she received calls and texts about a U-Verse account that
was not hers and that the company used an automatic dialing system
to call with an automated or prerecorded voice -- a violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Last year, AT&T moved to compel arbitration in the case, arguing
that the clause in the service agreement covers Ms. Wexler's
claim.  Judge Block said AT&T Mobility is unusually broad in terms
of the subject matter that it covers and that there is almost no
case law addressing such a broad clause.

However, the judge said he and the parties were able to find at
least one case that squarely addresses an arbitration clause as
broad as Mobility's: In re Jiffy Lube International, Inc., Text
Spam Litigation, 847 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (S.D. Cal. 2012).

Judge Block agreed with a finding by Southern District of
California Judge Jeffrey Miller in the case that such clauses are
cause for concern, and that AT&T Mobility's clause could produce
"absurd results," such as forcing Wexler to arbitrate tort claims
arising, for example, from her being hit by a company van or
tripping over a dangerous condition in one of the company's
stores.

But he disagreed with Judge Miller's holding that agreements
covering any and all disputes are "unconscionable." Her argument,
he said, was "in tension" with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011
decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011),
which addressed the same clause in the company's service
agreement, but not the breadth of the agreement.

Instead, Judge Block said, an arbitration clause that is
"unlimited in scope" presents a question of contract formation.  A
reasonable person who agrees to a company's terms and conditions
"would be expressing, at most, an intent to agree to arbitrate
disputes connected in some way to the service agreement with
Mobility."

Shimshom Wexler of the Law Offices of Shimshom Wexler in Manhattan
and James Giardina of the Tampa, Florida based Consumer Rights Law
Group represent Eve Wexler. Shimshom Wexler did not respond to
requests for comment and Giardina declined to comment on the
decision.

Mayer Brown partners Evan Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- and
Archis Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- appeared for
AT&T.

Marty Richter, a spokesman for AT&T, said in an email the company
is reviewing the decision and considering its options, noting the
company has been recognized for having a "consumer-friendly"
arbitration policy.


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Faces Suit Over Arsenic Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Randolph, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action filed in Hammond, Ind., on behalf of more than
1,000 Indiana residents, including nearly 700 children, claims
DuPont and Atlantic Richfield Company caused lead and arsenic
poisoning that forced them to move.

Lerithea Rolan and Lamottca Brooks sued Atlantic Richfield, E.I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company and the Chemours Company in
Northern Indiana federal court on October 6, alleging they
inundated East Chicago, Ind., properties and neighborhoods with
massive levels of hazardous lead and arsenic generated by their
manufacturing plants, forcing residents to relocate at their own
personal expense.

This summer, the mayor of East Chicago called for residents to
quickly relocate from their homes for their own health and safety,
according to the lawsuit.

His call for relocation was supported by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, which saw the threat to residents as so severe
that it warned them to avoid outdoor activities to prevent
exposure to lead in soil that is "hundreds of times greater than
safe residential levels," the complaint states.

For many years, Atlantic Richfield owned and operated a lead and
zinc manufacturing refinery in the area, where it allegedly
generated and dumped lead and arsenic into nearby residential
areas. The problem was compounded by the fact that DuPont also
dumped similar chemicals from its nearby plant, which was a
pesticide lead arsenate production facility, the residents say.

Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, they say they were constantly
exposed to the chemicals though ingestion, inhalation and skin
exposure in their underrepresented minority community in a low-
income area.

At the end of 2014, the EPA -- which has classified East Chicago
as an "environmental justice community" particularly susceptible
to contamination due to economic circumstances -- sampled soil for
lead and arsenic in the residents' yards.  It was not until July
of this year that the EPA informed residents that their homes were
highly contaminated, Thursday's lawsuit states.

This was of particular concern to Rolan and Brooks, who each have
children living with them. According to the EPA's website, lead is
highly toxic and lead exposure in children can cause "irreversible
behavioral problems, learning disabilities and impaired growth."

High levels of lead exposure also contribute to "severe
neurological problems such as comas, convulsions and death,"
according to the government site.

In addition, the EPA says arsenic exposure can result in
gastrointestinal, skin, brain and nervous system disorders, as
arsenic is a human carcinogen.

The EPA's information was important for Rolan and Brooks, but it
left them in an impossible situation, they claim, since the agency
also recommended that all affected residents keep their windows
closed and children inside at all times to "greatly curtail their
normal activities to avoid being poisoned."

Children were told to refrain from playing in dirt or mulch and
needed to have their hands and toys washed constantly after
playing outside. All residents were supposed to remove their shoes
before walking in their homes and avoid digging in their own
gardens or yards, the complaint states.

The restraints have thrown their lives into disarray, according to
the lawsuit, as the 680 children in the proposed class were stuck
inside their homes this summer while residents scrambled to find
alternative temporary housing.

The entire neighborhood, including previously active playgrounds,
"now resembles a ghost town," and an elementary school located
within the contamination area was shuttered in August, the
plaintiffs say.

The threat of poisoning was so severe that East Chicago Mayor
Anthony Copeland reportedly sent letters to more than 1,000
residents in July telling them to abandon their homes for their
own safety.

In addition, the West Calumet Housing Complex, where many class
members live, recently sent letters to all of its residents saying
they are required to vacate their homes by the end of November, as
the complex is set for demolition due to contamination.

The news caused "widespread panic . . . requiring many to spend
substantial time and resources searching for a new place to live,"
according to the complaint.

Rolan and Brooks' lawsuit is not the first of its kind for
Atlantic Richfield or its parent company, BP. Atlantic Richfield
was bought by BP America in 2000, although BP is not named as a
defendant in October 6, class action.

In 2009, the EPA found dangerous levels of uranium and arsenic in
the wells of residents in Yerington, Nev., who lived near one of
the company's mines. BP later agreed to settle a class action
filed by 700 residents for $19.5 million.

Rolan and Brooks have requested class certification based on the
number of residents affected. They seek compensation for the costs
of investigation and contamination of their homes, as well as
temporary housing and relocation costs under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by James Brusslan of Levenfeld
Pearlstein and Thomas Zimmerman of Zimmerman Law, both located in
Chicago.

BP, Atlantic Richfield's parent company, did not immediately
return a message requesting comment on October 7, morning.

Dan Turner of DuPont said on October 7, that DuPont has not yet
been served with the lawsuit, but that defendant Chemours Company,
which was spun off from DuPont in July 2015, has assumed
responsibility for liabilities related to the contamination site.

A message left with Chemours early on October 7, afternoon was not
immediately returned.


BANKRATE INC: February 6, 2017 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:14-cv-81323-DMM

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ACTING THROUGH ITS FIRE AND POLICE
PENSION SYSTEM, ACTING BY ORDER OF AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF FIRE
AND POLICE PENSION COMMISSIONERS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANKRATE, INC., EDWARD J. DIMARIA, KENNETH S. ESTEROW, GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, AND STEPHENS, INC.,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND
SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Bankrate, Inc. ("Bankrate") during
the period from October 27, 2011 through October 9, 2014,
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), including in the March
2014 Secondary Offering of Bankrate common stock (the "Settlement
Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the definition of
the Settlement Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated July 18, 2016 (the "Stipulation")
and the Notice described below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN
THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED BELOW.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, that the above-
captioned litigation ("Action") has been certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only and that the parties to
the Action have reached a proposed settlement for $20,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.  A hearing will be held on February 6, 2017
at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Paul G. Rogers Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 701 Clematis
Street, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the releases specified and
described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  A detailed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class,
Proposed Settlement, and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice")
and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form") are currently
being mailed to Settlement Class Members explaining their rights
in connection with the Settlement and the process for submitting a
Claim Form.  If you have not yet received the detailed Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
www.BankrateSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

The City of Los Angeles, et al. v. Bankrate, Inc., et al.
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 6847
Broomfield, CO  80021
1-844-360-2773
info@BankrateSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Court-appointed Lead Counsel:

KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA  19087
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than January 21, 2017.  If you
are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 17, 2017,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in
the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than January 17, 2017, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Bankrate, any
other Defendant, or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

DATED: October 3, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court
Southern District of Florida


BARNES & NOBLE: Court Dismisses PIN Pad Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrea R. Wood dismissed all counts of the amended complaint
in the case captioned IN RE BARNES & NOBLE PIN PAD LITIGATION, No.
12-cv-08617 (N.D. Ill.).

Ray Clutts, Heather Dieffenbach, Jonathan Honor, and Susan
Winstead filed a putative class action against Barnes & Noble,
Inc. in the wake of a data breach during which hackers obtained
personal identifying information (PII) belonging to Barnes & Noble
customers.  The plaintiffs purchased products with their credit or
debit cards at affected stores during the time period in which
this data breach occurred.

Barnes & Noble moved to dismiss the amended complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court
lacks jurisdiction over these claims because the plaintiffs have
failed to allege injury in fact adequately for purposes of Article
III standing.  Judge Wood, however, found that the amended
complaint sufficiently pleads injury in fact, as the plaintiffs
have alleged that they incurred injuries in the course of
protecting themselves from a "substantial risk" of fraudulent
charges.

Barnes & Noble also moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.

In Count I of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that,
in providing their financial information to Barnes & Noble, they
entered into an implied contract whereby Barnes & Noble became
obligated to reasonably safeguard the plaintiffs' and the other
class members' PII.  Judge Wood explained that under both Illinois
and California law, a plaintiff must allege that he or she
suffered damages in order to plead a cause of action for breach of
contract.  The judge found that the amended complaint is deficient
in that it failed to plead any economic or out-of-pocket damages
that were caused by the Barnes & Noble data breach.

In Count II, the plaintiffs also alleged that Barnes & Noble
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA) by failing to properly implement adequate,
commercially reasonable security measures to protect the
plaintiffs' and the other class members' PII and by failing to
inform the plaintiffs and class members of these material facts.
Judge Wood found that the plaintiffs' failure to plead any
economic damages whatsoever in the complaint is fatal to this
cause of action.  The judge concluded that the plaintiffs failed
to state a viable claim because "[o]nly a person who suffers
actual damage may bring an action under the ICFA."

In Count III, the plaintiffs attempted to state a cause of action
based on Barnes & Noble's purported invasion of privacy through
public disclosure of the plaintiffs' PII.  Judge Wood held that
the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because they failed to
allege that there was a public disclosure within the meaning of
the common law cause of action.  The judge pointed out that the
amended complaint contains no allegation that the exposed PII was
widely published.  The judge also added that, even had the PII
been sufficiently widely disseminated to count as a public
disclosure, the PII cannot be considered private information that
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

In Count IV, the amended complaint included a claim that Barnes &
Noble violated the California Security Breach Notification Act.
Judge Wood found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim with
respect to Count IV because they failed to adequately plead injury
by any violation of the California Security Breach Notification
Act.  The judge found that the amended complaint failed to plead
facts that would establish such a causal connection between the
six-week delay in reporting the Barnes & Noble breach and any
damages that may have been suffered.

Finally, in Count V, the amended complaint alleged that Barnes &
Noble engaged in "unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business
practices" in violation of California's Unfair Competition Act
(UCL).  Judge Wood dismissed the claim because the amended
complaint failed to sufficiently allege any loss of money or
property within the meaning of the UCL.

A full-text copy of Judge Wood's October 3, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/Q7KTXV from
Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Nowak, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC & Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A..

Susan Winstead, Ray Clutts, Jonathan Honor, Heather Dieffenbach,
Plaintiffs, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates,
P.C..

Barnes & Noble, Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter Vincent
Baugher -- pbaugher@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and
Cohn LLP & Kenneth Lee Chernof -- kenneth.chernof@aporter.com --
Arnold & Porter Llp, pro hac vice.

Service List,, represented by E. Kirk Wood, Wood Law Firm LLC, pro
hac vice, Aron David Robinson, Law Office of Aron D. Robinson, Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., David S. Markun --
dmarkun@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman & Compton LLP, Jeffrey A. Leon
-- jeff@qulegal.com -- Quantum Legal LLC, Peter Vincent Baugher --
pbaugher@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP &
William Anthony Baird, Marlin & Saltzman,LLP.


BELK INC: Sales Team Managers Class Certified in "Halleen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Amos L. Mazzant, III, granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify collective action and to approve and
facilitate notice to similarly situated employees filed in the
lawsuit styled HOPE HALLEEN, et al. v. BELK, INC., Case No. 4:16-
CV-00055 (E.D. Tex.).

The Court conditionally certifies this class of the Defendant's
current and former employees:

     Defendant's current and former Sales Team Managers who
     worked at any of Defendant's locations at any time during
     the three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Hope Halleen and Donna Maner were both employed by
Defendant Belk, Inc., as Sales Team Managers.  The Defendant, a
privately held department store, classifies STMs as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act under
the executive exemption.  In their complaint, the Plaintiffs
assert that they and other similarly situated STMS were improperly
classified as exempt in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendant will produce within 14 days of the date of the order
the full name, last known physical address and e-mail address,
last known telephone number, and dates of employment for all
Workers in electronic format.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/ERFJgL from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Hope Halleen and Donna Maner are represented by:

          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  david.roth@rothandrothlaw.com
                  mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Alan Luis Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

Defendant BELK, INC., is represented by:

          John Bridges Brown, Esq.
          Britney Elaine Harrison, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          8117 Preston Road
          Preston Commons, W.
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 987-3800
          Facsimile: (214) 987-3927
          E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com


BRASKEM SA: Enters Into Talks with SEC Amid Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Haynes, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's Braskem
SA, Latin America's largest petrochemical producer, said on
Oct. 3 it had entered talks with the U.S. Department of Justice
and the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding an internal
graft probe started in 2015.

Braskem said in a securities filing that it aimed to reach a
formal accord that may result in "material financial obligations"
and other possible sanctions.  The company said it would also
start a parallel process with Brazilian authorities.

The negotiations bring Braskem closer to a reckoning in the vast
corruption scandal engulfing its two main shareholders, state-run
oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA and engineering conglomerate
Odebrecht SA.

Braskem shares rose 3 percent in early Sao Paulo trading, the
biggest gain on the benchmark Bovespa stock index, as the company
neared closure on the corruption probe.

Brazilian prosecutors have accused Odebrecht of paying bribes for
contracts including a deal for Petrobras to supply naphtha to
Braskem at favorable rates that eventually caused 6 billion reais
($1.9 billion) of losses.

Braskem's former chief executive, Carlos Fadigas, last year
dismissed allegations of an unfair supply contract and in December
signed a new five-year naphtha deal with Petrobras.

Shareholders in a class action suit in New York accused
Mr. Fadigas and other executives of making "materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies."

Mr. Fadigas stepped aside as CEO in May, handing the reins to
Fernando Musa, who had run the company's business in the United
States and Europe since 2012.

Braskem said in an August earnings filing that it would enter
talks with U.S. officials to clarify accusations that had come up
in investigations of third parties.

In the Oct. 3 filing, Braskem did not comment on alleged
wrongdoing and said it could not predict the duration or result of
the ongoing talks.


BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Sanitary Sewer Users Withdraw Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Eberbach, writing for Livingston Daily, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit alleging Brighton Township had for
years overcharged the original users of its sanitary sewer system
has been withdrawn.

Brighton Township residents Dennis Shoner and Barbara Potocki
pulled the plug on the suit, according to federal court documents.
The suit was filed in June.

A stipulated dismissal without prejudice was filed on Sept. 30,
which means the plaintiffs would be allowed to file suit in the
future.  The plaintiffs and the township both agreed to the
dismissal.

It was unknown as of Oct. 3 if further legal action will be taken.

Several requests for comments from attorneys involved in the case
were made on Oct. 3 but had not been returned by noon.

Candidate for township clerk Bob Potocki, who is married to
Barbara Potocki, indicated his wife was not yet ready to comment
on the matter.

Three alleged "unlawful" overcharges were mentioned in the suit:
an operations and maintenance charge, a capital service charge and
initial assessments of $12,400 per residential equivalent unit.

The suit alleged the township violated Equal Protection Guarantees
in the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

It also alleged the township violated an ordinance requiring
property owners within 200 feet to hook up by letting some "opt
out," it states.

Township officials acknowledged that the wastewater system was
overbuilt in anticipation of more growth that hasn't happened in
the 15 years since the establishment of a sanitary drain district.
Because growth stalled short of projections, the plant does not
have enough users.

What to do about unused wastewater treatment plant capacity and
who should shoulder the burden of the cost were questions at the
heart of tense discussions at numerous township meetings this
year.

A work session meeting of the Brighton Township Board of Trustees
was set for Oct. 3 at 7:00 p.m., at the township hall, 4363 Buno
Road.


BULLY'S SPORTS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Sonner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Bully's Sports Bar & Grill has agreed to pay $375,000 in back
wages to settle part of a class-action lawsuit with 15 cooks who
accused the oldest sports bar chain in northern Nevada of denying
them overtime pay in violation of federal labor laws.

The two sides are still trying to reach a settlement on behalf of
at least 10 additional kitchen managers and assistant kitchen
managers who argue they also should be paid back wages dating to
2012, said Charles Jones, a Reno lawyer for the workers.

If they can't, they intend to go to trial in federal court in the
coming months, Mr. Jones told The Associated Press on Oct. 3.

U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben checked off on the partial
settlement, but he has not yet ruled on Mr. Jones' motion seeking
payment of nearly $250,000 in additional legal fees and costs.

Jo Sonner, owner of Bully's Sports Bar & Grill, said the partial
settlement with the cooks "is fair and represents compromise from
both sides of the matter."  "We chose not to settle the matter
related to management level employees and look forward to that
outcome," she said in a statement on Oct. 3.

The lawsuit filed in January 2015 accuses Bully's of intentionally
misclassifying all three categories of workers as salaried
executives to skirt labor laws requiring anyone making less than
$23,600 annually be paid overtime for anything over 40 hours a
week.  The lawsuit said many of the employees were working as many
as 60 hours a week.

"The general rule is if you work more than 40 hours a week, you
are entitled to overtime," Mr. Jones said.  "There are several
exceptions to that rule, but they are exceptions."

In this case, Mr. Jones said Bully's claimed the "so-called
'white-collar' exemption" for more than two dozen employees of the
22-year-old chain of taverns with limited gambling licenses in
Reno and Sparks that allow for up to 15 slot machines.

The only workers exempt from overtime are "bona fide" executives
working in an "administrative or professional capacity or in the
capacity of outside salesman," the lawsuit said.

Bully's exempted general managers and assistant general managers
because of supervisory responsibilities.  But the cooks' and
kitchen managers' primary duty was not management, the lawsuit
said.  "These salaried 'managers' are not responsible for the day-
to-day operations of the sports bars."

Bully's started paying cooks properly after the civil lawsuit was
filed.  But the company has "steadfastly continued to deny" the
others "were misclassified as exempt employees and that they were
entitled to overtime pay," Jones said in court filings.

Mr. Jones said on Oct. 3 it's been his experience litigating
similar cases "there's a common misconception" among many bar and
restaurant workers that they are not entitled to overtime simply
because their employer told them so.

"They just assume that since their employer is doing it this way,
it must be legal," Mr. Jones said.

"Frequently, in the restaurant industry in general -- especially
when you look at franchised or larger businesses -- the operations
are very standardized and routine.  There is not a lot of
decision-making or managerial work and they are acting more as
regular workers, serving food, prepping food, cleaning and the
like," he said.

Mr. Jones said he hopes abuse of the exemption will decline when a
new federal law goes into effect in December mandating the minimum
salary required to be exempt from overtime is raised to $47,000.

"But we see a lot of employers getting very creative," he said.
"Labor continues to be the No. 1 controllable expense."


CARBYLAN THERAPEUTICS: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2016, that
a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed on
September 26, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda against Carbylan
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Carbylan"), the members of the board of
directors of Carbylan, as well as against KalVista Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. ("KalVista"), Wedbush Securities Inc. ("Wedbush") and certain
unknown employees of Wedbush, entitled Laidlaw v. Carbylan
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. RG16832665. The complaint
alleges that the members of Carbylan's board of directors and/or
Carbylan breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith,
loyalty and/or disclosure in connection with the Share Purchase
Agreement, dated as of June 15, 2016, by and among Carbylan,
KalVista, and the shareholders of KalVista, and that KalVista and
Wedbush aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks to enjoin and/or rescind any transaction with
KalVista as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Carbylan believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.


CARMAX INC: Court Approves Settlement of Remaining Areso Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that a settlement, for an
immaterial amount, of the remaining claims asserted by Areso was
approved by the California state court.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved wage and hour
claims with respect to a putative class consisting of sales
consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked
for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.
The court dismissed certain of the initial claims so that, by June
16, 2009, the remaining claims regarded the sales consultant
putative class and were: (1) failure to provide meal breaks or
compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of
terminated or resigned employees related to meal breaks; (3)
unfair competition; and (4) claims under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act (the "Private Attorney General Act").

On March 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Fowler were
settled for an immaterial amount. On August 30, 2016, a
settlement, for an immaterial amount, of the remaining claims
asserted by Areso was approved by the California state court.


CARMAX INC: Defending 3 Wage and Hour Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2016, for the
Quarterly Period Ended August 31, 2016, that CarMax entities are
defendants in three additional proceedings asserting wage and hour
claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants in California. The
asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal
periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses, provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.

On October 15, 2015, CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. were served with a
complaint filed on behalf of Mr. Craig Weiss in the Superior Court
of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil
penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys'
fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
these matters," the Company said.


CENTER FOR HEALTH: "Wolfdang" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL WILLIS AND YOLANDA WOLFDANE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. THE CENTER FOR
HEALTH CARE SERVICES, A TEXAS PUBLIC AGENCY, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00964 (W.D. Tex., Sep. 28, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs allege that Health Care Services fails to pay
clinical practitioners and caseworkers time and one-half of their
regular rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek.

Health Care Services owns and operates a mental health service for
individuals with mental health issues, developmental disability
issues and substance abuse issues in Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence G. Morales, Esq.
          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225 0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225 0821
          E-mail: moralesl@sbcglobal.net
                  lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


CEPHALON INC: 3rd Circ. Decertified Modafinil Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
S. Laney Griffo, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that
recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
made a surprising decision to decertify a class action lawsuit
regarding the drug Modafinil.

The court found the number of members in the class was not enough
to constitute class action status.

Ten years ago, Cephalon, a drug manufacturer, allegedly paid
several generic drug manufacturers to not make generic versions of
the drug Modafinil.

About 20 direct pharmaceutical purchasers came together to form a
class-action lawsuit against the branded and generic
manufacturers. They claimed the manufacturers were keeping the
prices high for Modafinil by preventing generic versions from
being made.

In July, the motion for class action was granted by Judge Mitchell
S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. He granted class certification on grounds that the
plaintiffs' claim satisfied the numerosity and predominance
requirements of Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Practice.

"Starting in the '90s, people have voiced skepticism about whether
Rule 23 and class actions suits are doing what they're intended to
do," Lindsay Breedlove, an associate with Pepper Hamilton, told
the Pennsylvania Record.

The numerosity requirement states, "The class is so numerous that
joinder of class members is impracticable." The predominance
requirement states, "There are common questions of law or fact
that predominate over any individual class member's questions and
that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication."

"Judge Goldberg said the case was so far along, it's more
economical to certify the class at this stage," Robin Sumner, a
partner at Pepper Hamilton, said.

The Third Circuit found issue with Goldberg's decision and decided
2-1 to decertify the class.

The Third Circuit did not believe this class action satisfied the
numerosity requirement. Although a specific number requirement has
not been set, traditionally classes have 20 or more members.

The court will also look at the judicial economy, geography,
financial resources of the members, their ability to sue
separately, and requests for injunctive reliefs from the members.

This class does have at least 22 members; however, three of the
members make up 97 percent of the market. This does not satisfy
the requirements regarding judicial economy, financial resources
of the members and their ability to sue separately, the Third
Circuit ruled.

"They make millions of dollars each," Sumner said. "They certainly
could've brought an individual case. These are not small consumer
claims."

The respondents have until Oct. 14 to file a petition to have the
whole court vote to rehear the case. It is rare for the court to
grant a rehearing, but Sumner believes it might in this case.

"It's a significant decision that surprised a lot of people and
got a lot of attention," Sumner said.


CNX GAS: Court Denies Request for Jurisdictional Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States of
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied
Municipal Water Authority's request for jurisdictional discovery
and motion to remand in the case captioned, MUNICIPAL WATER
AUTHORITY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff, v. CNX GAS COMPANY, L.L.C.,
NOBLE ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-422 (W.D. Pa.).

Municipal Water Authority filed a putative class action against
Defendant CNX Gas Company, L.L.C. (CNX) and defendant Noble
Energy, Inc. (Noble Energy) for Count I -- Breach of Contract
under Pennsylvania common law against CNX; --  Count II -- Breach
of Contract under Pennsylvania common law against CNX; --  Count
III -- Conversion under Pennsylvania common law against CNX; --
Count IV -- Breach of Contract under Pennsylvania common law
against Noble Energy; --  Count V -- Breach of Contract under
Pennsylvania common law against Noble Energy; and --  Count VI --
Conversion under Pennsylvania common law against Noble Energy.
Plaintiff proposed a putative class of "Every person who is, or
has been, a royalty owner under an oil and gas lease in which (l)
the original Lessee named on the lease was Dominion Exploration
and Production, Inc. or Dominion Transmission, Inc.; (2) the
present Lessee is CNX Gas, L.L.C. and/or Noble Energy, Inc.; and
(3) natural gas has been produced under the lease."

Defendants removed the case to the court from the Court of Common
Pleas of Westmoreland County under the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA). On April 18, 2016, CNX filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint and brief in support of the motion. On the same
date, Noble Energy filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support
of the motion. On April 20, 2016, Municipal Water Authority filed
a motion to remand to state court and a brief in support of the
motion. On April 21, 2016, the court set a hearing on the motion
to remand and stayed all other deadlines in the case, including
deadlines with respect to the motions to dismiss pending before
the court. On May 11, 2016, defendant Noble Energy joined in the
brief in opposition to the motion to remand filed by CNX.

The court held on the record that defendants met their burden to
prove a basis for federal jurisdiction under CAFA.

In the motion, Municipal Water Authority argued that it was
entitled to jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the
assertions made by counsel for defendants were correct, i.e., that
more than two-thirds of the leases implicated by the class
definition were for wells located outside Pennsylvania.

In her Opinion dated September 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/iVD7Zi from Leagle.com, Judge Conti did not permit
Municipal Water Authority additional discovery to prove that more
than two-thirds of the members of the putative class are citizens
of Pennsylvania in accordance with the court's instructions given
at the June 13, 2016 hearing because the class is not limited to
owners of royalties under Pennsylvania leases. It also did not
satisfy its burden to show that more than two-thirds of the
putative class -- as plead in the complaint -- are residents, let
alone citizens, of Pennsylvania, which is a necessary element of
the local controversy exception in the case.

Municipal Water Authority of Westmoreland County is represented by
David A. McGowan, Esq. -- dmcgowan@cbmclaw.com -- and -- John W.
McTiernan, Esq. -- jmctiernan@cbmclaw.com -- CAROSELLI, BEACHLER,
MCTIERNAN & CONBOY

CNX GAS COMPANY, L.L.C. is represented by Nicolle R. Snyder
Bagnell, Esq. -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Stacey L. Jarrell, Esq.
-- sjarrell@reedsmith.com -- and Thomas J. Galligan, Esq. --
tgalligan@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP

NOBLE ENERGY, INC. is represented by John K. Gisleson, Esq. --
john.gisleson@morganlewis.com -- and Matthew H. Sepp, Esq. --
matthew.sepp@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Potential Securities Violations Probed
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is investigating potential violations of
the federal securities laws by Cognizant Technology Solutions
Corporation and certain of its officers.  On September 30, 2016,
Cognizant made known that it was conducting an internal
investigation into whether certain payments in India violated the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  Cognizant also announced that
its president had resigned.  On this news, shares of Cognizant
closed down sharply on September 30, 2016.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including past employees and others, or if you are a Cognizant
shareholder and are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or phone at
619-814-4471.  If emailing, please include a phone number where
you can be reached.

BofI Holding, Inc.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of
federal and state laws by BofI Holding, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  A class action lawsuit against the Company has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased BofI stock between
September 4, 2013 through October 13, 2015, (the "Class Period").

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) BofI's internal
controls were frequently disregarded; (2) BofI's borrowers
included foreign nationals who should have been off-limits under
federal anti-money-laundering laws; (3) many BofI accounts lacked
required tax identification numbers; (4) BofI fired an internal
auditor who raised these issues to management and to federal
regulators; and (5) as a result of the above, BofI's statements
regarding its internal controls and other financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you have held BofI shares continuously prior to September 4,
2013, you may have standing to hold BofI harmless from the damage
the officers and directors caused by making them personally
responsible.  You may also be able to assist in reforming the
Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are a BofI shareholder and are interested in learning more
about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please
contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at
619-814-4471.  If you email, please include your phone number.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of
federal and state laws by SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  A class action lawsuit against the Company was
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased SeaWorld between
August 29, 2013 and August 12, 2014, (the "Class Period").

The complaint filed in the class action lawsuit alleges that
SeaWorld and certain of its officers and directors made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose information regarding
the critically acclaimed 2013 documentary Blackfish -- a film
which the complaint alleges had a profound impact on attendance at
SeaWorld-branded parks throughout the Class Period, as it damaged
the public's perception of SeaWorld and degraded the Company's
core brand and business.  On September 29, 2016, the Court issued
a tentative ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss the
federal class action.

If you have held SeaWorld shares continuously prior to December
2013, you may have standing to hold SeaWorld harmless from the
damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally
responsible.  You may also be able to assist in reforming the
Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are a SeaWorld shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com
-- at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please include your phone
number.

ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of the
federal securities laws by ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  On July 16, 2015, ProNAi's stock traded as high
as $33.75, the same day the Company sold 8.1 million shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), raising
$137.7 million in new capital.  However, since the IPO, ProNAi's
stock has tumbled, closing at $1.82 on September 30, 2016.

On June 6, 2016, ProNAi released its interim results from the
Wolverine Phase 2 trial of PNT2258 for the treatment of relapsed
or refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Nick Glover, President and CEO said, "Although [PNT2258] observed
modest efficacy . . . in [the] interim analysis of Wolverine," the
Company has "decided to suspend the development of PNT2258"
because the results were not "robust enough to justify continued
development of the drug in DLBCL."  Specifically, Johnson &
Weaver's investigation seeks to determine whether certain
statements regarding the Company's business metrics and financial
prospects were not as strong as represented in the Registration
Statement.

If you are a ProNAi shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com
-- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone
number.

                     About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York
and Georgia.  The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits.


CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN: Court Certifies Class in "Murillo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification
filed in the lawsuit entitled NANCY MURILLO, et al. v. CORYELL
COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-3641 (E.D. La.).

Judge Brown ruled that the notice will be sent to:

     "All individuals who provided labor to Coryell County
      Tradesmen or CC Labor or Ronald Franks Construction on the
      225 Baronne Street construction project in New Orleans,
      Louisiana during the previous two years and who are
      eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
      Section 207 or minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA, 29
      U.S.C. Section 206 and who did not receive full overtime or
      minimum wage compensation."

The Court also ordered that the Parties meet and confer regarding
the form and content of the proposed notice, in keeping with the
Court's ruling.  The Parties are ordered to submit a joint
proposed notice within 10 days of the date of the Order.  If the
parties are unable to agree on a proposed notice, the parties will
each submit (1) their proposed notice and (2) their objections,
with supporting authority, to the opposing party's notice and
consent form, within 10 days of this Order, and request an
expedited status conference on the matter.

Judge Brown further ordered that to the extent that any employment
records of potential class members have not been produced, he
Defendants must produce this information to the Plaintiffs.  The
opt-in period for putative class members will be 90 days from the
date that a final notice is approved by the Court.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/oeCDGy from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Nancy Murillo, Evelyn Mejia, Ambrocio Benito Castro and
Melchor Acevedo are represented by:

          Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
          Emily Westermeier, Esq.
          COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 914-1048
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

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

Defendant and Cross Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company,
LLC, is represented by:

          Daniel Lund, III, Esq.
          Aaron J. Hurd, Esq.
          Amanda Wingfield Goldman, Esq.
          Clyde H. Jacob, III, Esq.
          Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, Esq.
          Tamara J. Lindsay, Esq.
          COATS ROSE
          365 Canal Street, Suite 800
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 299-3070
          Facsimile: (504) 299-3071
          E-mail: dlund@coatsrose.com
                  ahurd@coatsrose.com
                  agoldman@coatsrose.com
                  cjacob@coatsrose.com
                  isiddiqui@coatsrose.com

Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant Roy Anderson
Corp, and Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of
America are represented by:

          Lloyd Noble Shields, Esq.
          Jessica R. Derenbecker, Esq.
          Jessica A. Roberts, Esq.
          Michael S. Blackwell, Esq.
          Norman A. Mott, III, Esq.
          SHIELDS MOTT LLP
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2600
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-4445
          Facsimile: (504) 581-4440
          E-mail: LNS@shieldsmott.com
                  JRD@shieldsmott.com
                  JAR@shieldsmott.com
                  MSB@shieldsmott.com
                  mofomotz@aol.com


DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Pay All Wages & OT, "Martinez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE MARTINEZ, an individual, individually, on behalf of the
general public, and all other similarly situated v. DAVID'S
BRIDAL, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. BC634688 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 21,
2016), accuses the Defendants of failure to pay overtime and
compensation for all hours worked.

David's Bridal, Inc., is a corporation which employed California
persons in or near the City and County of Los Angeles.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf all non-exempt employees, who
work(ed) for the Defendants in their bridal stores in California.
The Plaintiff and members of the class work(ed) as assistant
managers, customer service representatives, stylists, alterations
employees, and others at the Defendants' various locations in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle Todd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 208-9171
          Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com


DBKW 1: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Compensation Under Cal. Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY REYES, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private
Attorneys General, the Plaintiff, v. DBKW 1 LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1-250, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC635563 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 28, 2016),
seeks declaratory relief, restitution and compensation for work
performed and moneys due pursuant to the California Labor Code and
Minimum Wage Order.

Defendants allegedly refused to compensate Plaintiff for all wages
earned, and all hours worked, at the required minimum wage. As a
direct result Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer,
substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such
compensation and wages; lost interest on such monies and expenses;
and attorney's fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully
perform their obligation under state law, all to their respective
damage in amounts according to proof at trial and within the
jurisdiction of the Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Shawnee Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that Deffenbaugh Industries Inc. is being sued for stinking up a
Shawnee neighborhood with "horrific" odors, pollutants and air
contaminants from its landfill in the area.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court by neighbors who are
seeking class-action status as well as compensatory, special and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  They also seek to have the
odors named a nuisance and requested an order requiring
Deffenbaugh to expeditiously correct the operation of the
facilities so odors no longer invade neighboring properties.

According to the lawsuit, the landfill has been the subject of
hundreds of complaints over the past few years, including more
than 100 in the last three months of 2015 alone.

Although Deffenbaugh has faced several similar lawsuits in the
past, this one seeks class-action status and accuses the company
of gross negligence.  The lawsuit quotes a senior district manager
telling the Shawnee Planning Commission that the company dropped
the ball and didn't perform up to the level the city was used to
seeing.

The plaintiffs accuse Deffenbaugh of constructing and failing to
reasonably repair and maintain the landfill, an alleged act of
negligence that submitted area residents to "a stench so
overwhelming that no reasonable person should be expected to
endure it."

"Defendants intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly,
maliciously, grossly and negligently failed to construct, maintain
and/or operate the landfill, and caused the invasion of
plaintiffs' property by noxious odors, air contaminants, and other
airborne pollutants on intermittent and reoccurring dates," the
complaint stated.  "Defendants are vicariously liable for all
damages suffered by plaintiffs, caused by defendants' employees,
representatives and agents, who, during the course and scope of
their employment, allowed or failed to correct the problem(s)
which caused noxious odors, and air contaminants to physically
invade plaintiffs' property."

Kansas City, Kan.-based Deffenbaugh, which was acquired by a
subsidiary of Houston-based Waste Management Inc. for about $390
million in 2015, has not issued a legal response to the complaint,
which was filed on Sept. 26.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Filed Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C11 said
in its Form 10 D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 29, 2016, for the monthly distribution
period from: August 18, 2016 to September 16, 2016, that Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company ("DBNTC") have filed a reply in support of their
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by a group of investors.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ("DBNTC") and have been sued by investors
in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
RMBS trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State
Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's
alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the
trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court
complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts,
which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the
state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue
have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims
in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements.
The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have
suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion,
but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a
sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 15, 2016.  On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On September 2, 2016, DBNTC
and DBTCA filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Filed Demurrer and Motion to Strike
--------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C11 said
in its Form 10 D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 29, 2016, for the monthly distribution
period from: August 18, 2016 to September 16, 2016, that Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company ("DBNTC") have filed filed a demurrer and motion to
strike in a state court action by Blackrock plaintiffs.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs -- Blackrock Advisors,
LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others -- filed a state court
action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and
included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint
asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of
fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of
interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of
themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465
trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue
have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7
billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.  On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer and
motion to strike.


DIRECTHEALTH.COM: Anaheim Man Sues Over Unsolicited Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that an Anaheim man has filed a class-action suit against
two health insurance marketers over allegations they placed
unsolicited calls to his cellphone.

Alexios Kafatos filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Sept. 19 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Directhealth.com LLC, TZ Insurance Solutions LLC and Does 1-10
citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in July,
the defendants called his cellphone multiple times in an attempt
to solicit its services. The plaintiff alleges that he did not
give the defendants his consent to call him and asked them to stop
calling.

The plaintiff holds Directhealth.com LLC, TZ Insurance Solutions
LLC and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly
used an automatic dialing system, failed to obtain prior express
consent from plaintiff and failed to respect the rights of
plaintiff to privacy.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, injunctive relief, to be awarded damages and other
relief that the court deems just. He is represented by Todd M.
Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:16-cv-01738


DUNKIN' BRANDS: Court Dismisses "Estler" Suit Over Sales Tax
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned THOMAS
ESTLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUNKIN' BRANDS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 932 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).

Thomas Estler, Blake Ruehrwein, and Steven Park, commenced the
purported class action lawsuit asserting claims arising from an
alleged unlawful surcharge, disguised as a "sales tax," on
prepackaged coffee at Dunkin' Donuts stores in New York City.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, negligence, fraud, and violations of New York General
Business Law section 349.  The defendants are Dunkin' Brands,
Inc., four named Dunkin' Donuts stores, and 500 unnamed Dunkin'
Donuts stores in New York.

Judge Schofield dismissed the complaint because the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims asserted.  At its
heart, the case concerns a New York State sales tax that the
plaintiffs alleged was improperly charged.  Judge Schofield
pointed out that New York law is clear that section 1139 provides
the exclusive remedy for the refund of any tax "erroneously,
illegally or unconstitutionally collected,"  and federal district
courts in New York have found that the administrative remedy set
forth in section 1139 is the exclusive remedy.

A full-text copy of Judge Schofield's October 3, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/HF7HAm from Leagle.com.

Thomas Estler, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Blake Ruehrwein, Steven Park, On behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Robert Matthew Rosenberg -- rmr@rosenberg-law.com -- Ted M.
Rosenberg, Esq., Ted Miles Rosenberg & Zachary J. Liszka, Mayer
Law Group, LLC.

Dunkin' Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric L. Yaffe --
eric.yaffe@gpmlaw.com -- Gray Plant Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, PA &
Ronald David Degen, O'Rourke & Degen, PLLC.

Dunkin' Donuts Store #350125, Dunkin' Donuts Store #350126,
Dunkin' Donuts Store #350127, Dunkin' Donuts Store #345768,
Defendants, represented by Christopher G. Kelly --
christopher.kelly@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP & Katherine
Anne Skeele -- katherine.skeele@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP.


EDDIE BAUER: "Heredia" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE HEREDIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 16CV300475 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 28, 2016),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, premium pay for
missed meal and rest periods, penalties under the California Labor
Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and the
California Unfair Competition Law (UCL)/

The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants have engaged in, among
other things a system of willful violations of the California
Labor Code and the UCL by creating and maintaining policies,
practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the above
stated rights and benefits. The policies, practices and customs of
the Defendants have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants
and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely
adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code and the UCL.

Eddie Bauer, is a sportswear company, manufactures clothing,
accessories, and gear for men, women, and kids.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lany W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          Polaris Law Group LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333


ELBERT, CO: Dismissal of "Onxy", "Quinn" Suits Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court dismissing the substantive-due-
process claim in the cases captioned ONYX PROPERTIES LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; EMERALD PROPERTIES, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; PAUL NAFTEL; SHAUNA NAFTEL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, and LOCAL SERVICE CORPORATION, the Estate
of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in re: Simon E. Rodriquez, Trustee;
KENNETH G. ROHRBACH; KAREN L. ROHRBACH; PAUL K. ROHRBACH; COMPOST
EXPRESS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ELBERT COUNTY, in its official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Amicus
Curiae. ROBERT QUINN, an individual; KAREN QUINN, an individual;
PATRICIA RODENZ, an individual; MICHAEL MCCLENDON, an individual;
DAVID AKSLAND, an individual; SEAN MULVIHILL, an individual;
STEPHEN MULVIHILL, an individual; EDWIN BAKER, an individual;
VIRGINIA BAKER, an individual; STAN LYNN, an individual; EDWARD
LOVELACE, an individual; DONNA LOVELACE, an individual; EJL
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation; PRAIRIE LAND, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; CRAIG CLAUSEN, an individual;
KENLOU, LLC, a dissolved Colorado corporation; GARY LEVIN, an
individual; FIDDLEBACK RANCH, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company; WILLIAM PAUL SUMMERS, an individual; EUGENE ERICKSON, an
individual; ANNE ERICKSON, an individual; LORA KRISTA, an
individual; REBECCA ARNOLD, an individual; DENNIS LEONARD, an
individual; THOMAS MARONEY, an individual; STATION GULCH RANCH,
LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; RICHARD O'LEARY, an
individual; LINDA O'LEARY, an individual; MORNINGSTAR DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; AMANDA PINES, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; AMANDA PINES NORTH, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; LADERO LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ELBERT COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 15-1141,
15-1197 (10th Cir.).

The plaintiffs in the two appealed cases complained that they were
denied due process when the Board of County Commissioners of
Elbert County required them to rezone their properties before they
could subdivide them.  They alleged that after the Board lost the
documents reflecting the prior comprehensive zoning ordinance, it
created new documents without following proper procedures for
enacting an ordinance and covered up their misconduct.  The new
documents (the Wolf Documents), consist of a series of replacement
maps and zoning regulations which contained the findings of
Planning Director Kenneth Wolf when he was authorized to research
historical zoning information and to report his findings.

The first landowners to file suit were Onyx Properties, LLC and
its co-plaintiffs, who brought a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the
Onyx Litigation).  They sought injunctive relief and damages under
42 U.S.C. section 1983, on the grounds that the Board's actions
violated their rights to substantive and procedural due process.
The district court denied class certification, and the Tenth
Circuit declined to grant a petition for permission to appeal that
decision.  Robert Quinn and 31 other landowners who had been
members of the putative class then jointly filed suit against the
Board in the same court (the Quinn Litigation) raising the same
claims.

The district court in Onyx dismissed the substantive-due-process
claim on the pleadings and granted summary judgment in the Board's
favor on the procedural-due-process claim.  In Quinn, another
judge of the district court initially dismissed the first amended
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.  The plaintiffs responded with a
motion to permit them to submit a second amended complaint, but
the court concluded that the amendment would be futile and
dismissed both the procedural- and substantive-due-process claims
with prejudice.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs have failed
to present a federal violation because the adoption of a general
zoning law is a legislative act, and the Supreme Court long ago
established that the federal Constitution does not require a
hearing on the adoption of legislation.

The Tenth Circuit also held that the Board's adoption of the Wolf
Documents as the official zoning regulations and maps was a
legislative act, so the due process clause required no hearing,
and the conclusory allegations of cover-up and misrepresentation
in the Quinn Litigation do not present a plausible substantive-
due-process claim.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's October 3, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/ZMvfRP from Leagle.com.

James D. Thorburn -- jthorburn@thorburnwalker.com -- The Law
Office of James D. Thorburn, LLC, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Josh A. Marks -- cds@bhgrlaw.com -- (Melanie B. Lewis --
mbl@bhgrlaw.com -- with him on the briefs), Berg Hill Greenleaf &
Ruscitti, LLC, Boulder, Colorado; for Defendant-Appellee.

Troy R. Rackham -- trackham@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig, P.C.,
filed an Amicus Curiae brief for National Association of Home
Builders, Denver, Colorado, in support of Appellants.


EMPIRE TODAY: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that four
employees are suing a Northlake company, alleging breach of
contract in loss of bonus payments.

Kevin Wielgus, Mark Costigan, Sheryl Pascoe and Tom Ringlestein
filed a class action complaint, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Sept. 20 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division against Empire
Today LLC.  They allege the employer breached its employment and
independent sales representative agreements.

According to the complaint, as a result of Empire Today's actions,
the plaintiffs have suffered a loss of commissions and bonuses.
The plaintiffs allege Empire Today failed to pay proper
commissions and bonuses due them under their contracts, and
allowed computer problems and the failure to pay proper
commissions and bonuses to persist.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, an order certifying this a
class action, appointing the plaintiffs and their counsel to
represent the class, unpaid commissions, bonuses and other
compensation due, permanently enjoining the defendant's unlawful
systemic practice, court fees and costs, plus all other relief
that is proper.

They are represented by attorneys Caesar A. Tabet --
ctabet@tdrlawfirm.com -- Timothy A. Hudson --
thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- and Jordan E. Wilkow --
JWilkow@tdrlawfirm.com -- of Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC in
Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division Case number 1:16-cv-09085


FAMILY SLEEP: Court Rules on Competing Summary Judgment Bids
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith Starrett of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas denied Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment and granted Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment in the case captioned, DELICIA McDANIEL,
individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff,
v. FAMILY SLEEP DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ERIC STENGLE, and KAY VADEN
Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-4031-KS (N.D. Tex.).

On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff Delicia McDaniel (Plaintiff) filed
the collective action against Defendants Family Sleep Diagnostics,
Inc. (Family Sleep), Eric Stengle, and Kay Vaden (Defendants),
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff brings claims
of denial of overtime pay on behalf of herself and the class of
employees she represents, and a claim for retaliation on her own
behalf.

Family Sleep is a Texas company that provides sleep diagnostic
services to its clients. Eric Stengle is the owner of Family
Sleep, and Vaden is a member of Family Sleep's management.
Plaintiff and the employees she represents were employed by Family
Sleep during the relevant period.

On August 8, 2016, Defendants brought their Motion for Summary
Judgment, arguing that Family Sleep is not an "enterprise" subject
to the FLSA and that they should be granted summary judgment on
the basis. Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary
judgment because Plaintiff's has not adduced any evidence showing
that Family sleep is an "enterprise engaged in interstate
commerce" subject to coverage under the FLSA.

That same day, Plaintiff brought her Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, arguing that she had met her burden in establishing that
the collective plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the
denial of overtime pay claim. Plaintiff argues that partial
summary judgment should be granted as to Defendant Family Sleep's
liability on the collective action claim under the FLSA for
violations of the overtime wage requirements.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 20, 2016
available at https://is.gd/avyyeU from Leagle.com, Judge Starrett
concluded that Plaintiff has met the burden of showing evidence
that some of the equipment she and other employees used during
their employment at Family Sleep included goods and materials,
such as polysomnography equipment and nasal airflow sensors, that
were manufactured outside of the state of Texas and moved in the
stream of interstate commerce. As to Plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff has
established her case as to the first three elements of the
collective claim of overtime violations under the FLSA against
Family Sleep.

Delicia McDaniel is represented by Richard J. Burch, Esq. --
rburch@brucknerburch.com  -- and James A. Jones, Esq. --
jjones@brucknerburch.com -- BRUCKNER BURCH

Family Sleep Diagnostics Inc, et al. are represented by:

      Mary K. Ludwick, Esq.
      LUDWICK & ASSOCIATES
      5150 Belfort Road, Bldg. 500
      Jacksonville, FL 32256
      Tel:(904)281-0145

            -- and --

      Lynn Warren Schleinat, Esq.
      JONES ALLEN & FUQUAY
      8828 Greenville Ave
      Dallas, TX 75243
      Tel: (214)343-7400


FIAT CHRYSLER: Must Defend Against Investor Suit Over Recalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge advanced a class action that says vehicle-
recall shortcomings belied Fiat Chrysler's claims to investors
about its compliance with safety laws.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles was among 10 manufacturers that in 2014
had to recall cars equipped with Takata airbags based on findings
that they could explode upon use, firing metal fragments and
debris at passengers.

Bringing a federal class action last year in New York, investors
noted that the safety recall was the largest and most complex in
U.S. history, with more than 28 million inflators under recall.

Chrysler nevertheless assured investors that recall costs would
diminish and bragged about its success in recalling vehicles.

Scott Kunselman, then-head of vehicle safety and regulatory
compliance, in particular testified before the U.S. Senate that
Chrysler had "the highest recall completion rate of all major
U.S.-market auto makers," according to the lawsuit.

Kunselman also allegedly claimed at the hearing that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration "regards [Chrysler's]
customer-notification protocols as 'industry best.'"

Yet the next year, Chrysler entered a consent order with the
agency. Admitting that it had violated the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Chrysler agreed to pay a record $105
million fine.

Chrysler admitted it had failed to timely notify the agency and
car owners about 23 recalls affecting over 11 million vehicles,
and to adequately remedy three related defects.

Investors noted that the news sent the stock price of Fiat
Chrysler down 4.9 percent to close at $14.41.  The fall allegedly
led to a more than $950 million decline in the company's market
capitalization.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman refused to dismiss the Manhattan
lawsuit.  "Plaintiffs do not need to show that the individual
defendants were personally involved with each Safety Act violation
or even aware of any particular violation," Furman wrote.
"Instead, it is enough at this stage for plaintiffs to allege that
defendants were aware of nonpublic facts contradicting their
public representations of substantial legal compliance. Plaintiffs
do so, given the three deficient recalls about which defendants
appear to concede Kunselman and [CEO Sergio] Marhcionne were
aware."

Furman did, however, nix claims that Chrysler intentionally
misrepresented its "opinions" of its recall-reserve provisions.

"The only facts plaintiffs rely on are that (1) the number of FCA
vehicles recalled in the United States increased significantly
from 2010 to 2015 and (2) that, while FCA did increase its reserve
estimates during that period, those increases were insufficient,
as evidenced by the EUR761 million adjustment," Furman wrote
(parentheses and emphasis in original). "Those facts -- even when
combined with [CFO Richard] Palmer's statement about the adequacy
of reserves (which plaintiffs do not even mention in arguing
against dismissal), or FCA's statement, in July 2015, that it
'does not expect that the net cost of providing these additional
alternatives will be material to its financial position, liquidity
or results of operations,' do not allege securities fraud."

Investors had name Palmer as a defendant, but the court dismissed
claims against him and refused to let the plaintiffs file a fourth
amended complaint.

Chrysler's attorneys with Sullivan & Cromwell in New York did not
return requests for comment emailed Thursday by the time of
publication.

Attorneys for the class with Rosen Law and Pomerantz Law in New
York did not return a request for comment either.

The case is captioned, VICTOR PIRNIK, Plaintiff, -v- FIAT CHRYSLER
AUTOMOBILES, N.V., et al., Defendants., 15-CV-7199 (JMF)(S.D.N.Y)


FIRST NBC: Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
First NBC Bank Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in
a class action lawsuit await a decision on motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff of the putative class.

On May 5, 2016, a purported securities class action suit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, naming as defendants the Company, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company related to its tax
credit accounting practices and exposure to the oil and gas
industry. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 10, 2013 and
April 8, 2016.

A group of institutional investors and a pension fund have each
moved for appointment as lead plaintiff of the putative class.
Briefing on the lead plaintiff motions was completed on July 19,
2016, and the parties currently await a decision on these motions
from the Court.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
ultimate outcome of such litigation is necessarily unknown. The
Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
such matters.


FUNCTION(X) INC: Mule Sues BOD Over Fiduciary Breaches
------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MULE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN, PETER C. HORAN, MICHAEL MEYER,
MITCHELL J. NELSON, BIRAME SOCK and FUNCTION(X), INC., Case No.
654984/2016 (N.Y. Sup., September 21, 2016), is brought on behalf
of the public shareholders of Function(x) against the Company's
Board of Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties as a
result of a series of transactions designed to benefit Robert F.
X. Sillerman.

Mr. Sillerman is the Company's Executive Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer, majority shareholder with 65.9% of the Company's common
stock and senior creditor.  The other Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The transactions include the Company's entry into an agreement
with Mr. Sillerman on July 8, 2016, to exchange his $34.8 million
face amount of debt and 3,000 shares of the Company's Series C
Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock owned by him into Common
Stock at a conversion price $0.26 per share.

Function(x) is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in New York City.  Function(x), formerly doing
business as DraftDay Fantasy Sports Inc. and, prior thereto, as
Viggle, Inc., currently operates Wetpaint.com, an online
destination for entertainment news for millennial women, covering
the latest in television, music, and pop culture.  Function(x)
also operates Choose Digital, a digital marketplace platform that
allows companies to incorporate digital content into existing
rewards and loyalty programs in support of marketing and sales
initiatives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          Stephen T. Rodd, Esq.
          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
          212 East 39 Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: aabbey@abbeyspanier.com
                  stodd@abbeyspanier.com
                  nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


GENKI SUSHI: Hepatitis A Outbreak Spreads to 37 Flights
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Sellers, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that an
ongoing outbreak of Hepatitis A that started with imported sushi
in Hawaii now extends to 51 places where food was served,
including 37 Hawaiian Airlines flights, according to documents
filed in Hawaii Circuit Court (Ramos v. Genki Sushi USA, Inc.,
Haw. Cir. Ct., No. 16-1-1702-09, amended complaint filed
9/27/16).

D'Ann Ramos, the lead plaintiff in a would-be class action over
the outbreak, alleges the virus has been spread to and by food
workers in a variety of Oahu eateries including Baskin-Robbins,
Chili's, Costco, Papa John's, Taco Bell and a Chart House
restaurant in Honolulu.

The list also includes an elementary school, according to the
amended complaint filed Sept. 27.

The Hawaiian Airlines flights on which infected flight attendants
worked include routes between Hawaii and Oakland, Calif.,
Las Vegas, Seattle and Sydney, Australia from July 10 to Aug. 12,
the complaint said.

In a notice on its website, Hawaiian Airlines confirms possible
exposures on 37 of its flights, and that two of its employees
tested positive for the virus.

"While the risk of transmission is extremely low, we are taking
necessary precautions for the health of our customers and our
employees," the notice said.

The outbreak has infected 282 people so far, 71 of whom required
hospitalization, according to figures updated Sept. 28 by the
Hawaii Department of Health.

Genki Sushi USA Restaurants Inc., Koha Foods and Sea Port Products
are named as defendants in the action.

The original source of the contamination was bay scallops,
imported from the Philippines by Sea Port, which were distributed
by Koha and served by Genki Sushi at its Oahu restaurants, Ramos
alleges.

She seeks compensation for people with secondary exposure to the
virus who, like her, obtained a vaccination to prevent its
development.

Ms. Ramos claims employees at the food outlets and Hawaiian
Airlines ate adulterated food at Genki Sushi during the exposure
period from April to August 2016, and then potentially spread the
virus while preparing food at their workplaces.

The case is one of three filed over the outbreak so far, including
another class action (44 PSLR 981, 9/19/16).

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease usually transmitted by
ingestion of even microscopic amounts of fecal matter, by contact
with an infected person or consumption of contaminated objects,
food or drinks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

The law offices of Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher as well as Marler
Clark represent D'Ann Ramos and other plaintiffs in the case.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that the settlement in a
class action remains pending.

Heartland, Heartland's board of directors, Global Payments, Data
Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments, which we refer to as "Data Merger Sub One") and Data
Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments,
which we refer to as "Data Merger Sub Two") were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
proposed merger with Heartland. The suit was filed on January 8,
2016 in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil
Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v. Heartland Payment
Systems, et al, L-45-16. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the directors of Heartland breached their fiduciary
duties to Heartland stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for
inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection
terms in the merger agreement, failing to properly value
Heartland, and filing a materially incomplete registration
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland, Global Payments,
Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and
Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms
and conditions for settlement of the suit.

The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. If the
proposed settlement is approved by the court, it will release all
claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect
of the merger with Heartland or the merger agreement related
thereto and any disclosure made in connection therewith, under
terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval
of the proposed settlement. The settlement, if approved, is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, liquidity, results of operations or cash flows.


GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action For Reusing Insulin Injector
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Branch, writing for Stamford Patch, reports that Griffin
Hospital in Derby is being sued for allegedly reusing insulin
injector pens on different patients, a move that could have
exposed thousands of former patients to blood-borne diseases, such
as HIV, the plaintiffs' attorney says.

In a May 2014 letter, the hospital's CEO Patrick Charmel notified
3,149 former patients that over a nearly six-year period from 2008
to 2014 insulin injector pens may have been misused by staff,
reports the Connecticut Post. The hospital offered free testing
and treatment to those patients if they had been exposed to
certain blood-borne illnesses.

Stamford attorney Ernest Teitell has filed the class-action
lawsuit on behalf of those former patients, and he believes as
many as 11 hospital nurses and staff members may have been
involved in improperly reusing the insulin pens.

"We brought this case in order to hold Griffin Hospital
accountable for the clearly systematic unsafe practices that
occurred for a more than five-and-a-half-year period," Teitell
told the Post. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment to the
publication.


GUAM: Faces Class Action Over Denial of H-2b Visas
--------------------------------------------------
Ken Quintanilla, writing for KUAM News, reports that
5M Construction has been a consistent user of the H-2b program for
more than two decades -- on average sponsoring between 120 and 200
H-2b workers.  However with the 100 percent denial of H-2b
petitions for the company, 5M Construction vice president Larry
Manalo says it's creating a problem for its $10 million worth of
projects.

"And because of this H-2 rejection, we cannot finish them on time,
so we have a big liquidated damages on these projects if they
don't do anything on this H-2b program," he explained.  His
company joins 12 other plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed
against officials from the federal government.

Attorney Jennifer Davis says the plaintiffs are not seeking
monetary damage but rather clarification from the US Citizenship
and Immigration Service on a policy change on the H-2 petitions.
"We are asking the court to declare their change in policy as
unlawful because they have this longstanding policy of
adjudicating our H-2b petitions in a certain way," he said.

"They have changed that policy without any explanation, without
any notice or opportunity to comment as to such a change in policy
and the plaintiffs in our case have all been on contracts or
developed business models based on or relying on the prior policy
of the USCIS."

The plaintiffs include 12 companies representing different
industries on Guam including the Guam Contractors Association,
Guam Radiology Consultants, JMI-Edison, Inland Builders
Corporation, Marianas Linen Supply and New Fresh Bread Bakeshop.
Co-owner Arthur Zantua says his company only seeks about a handful
of H-2 workers but this year had all their petitions were denied.

He says the denial of other petitions has impacted sales with a
reported loss of $300-400 a day from customers who are mostly H-2
workers.  "So for us, as a bakery and our retail business, it's
more affect of these shortages of workers," he told KUAM News.

Ms. Davis meanwhile says while H-2 petitions can only be filed on
certain periods of the year, because of the military buildup, Guam
has been exempt and is allowed to file whenever.  She adds while
immigration have indicated there is no change in policy, the
change in numbers indicate otherwise resulting in what she calls a
"crisis".  "And just to give you an example up until 2015, Guam
was experiencing an over 95 percent approval rate on our H-2b
petitions," she explained.

"Since 2016, our approval rating has gone done to less than 1
percent."

In the meantime, with the filing of the lawsuit on Oct. 4, the
defendants from the federal government have 60 days to respond
with the first court hearing expected for early next year.


GUAM MEMORIAL: Judge Dismisses Part of Migrant's Tax Refund Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Stole, writing for Pacific Daily News, reports that a
federal judge dismissed part of the civil case filed by a regional
migrant, who sued Guam Memorial Hospital for garnishing her tax
refunds as payment for hospital bills.

Tairin Atesom in October 2015 filed a class action complaint in
the District Court of Guam against the hospital after GMH seized
her income tax refunds to satisfy a hospital bill balance from
when she and her family received treatment.

Ms. Atesom is a citizen of Federated States of Micronesia who
resides and works in Guam earning a minimum wage income, court
papers state.

Between 2013 through 2015, $14,501.99 of her tax refunds were
garnished to pay for hospital bills.  GMH stated Ms. Atesom
received medical services 14 times between 2000 and 2015, news
files state.

Ms. Atesom, through her lawyer William Bischoff, argued, among
other things, that the hospital is already reimbursed through the
Compact Impact funding and GMH "has no right to collect twice" for
medical services provided.

Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood agreed with the hospital and
the magistrate judge that Compact Impact reimbursements were meant
to assist the government of Guam and other affected areas instead
of providing FSM citizens with individual assistance.

"The magistrate judge concluded Congress did not explicitly or
implicitly provide private rights of action or private remedies
under the Compact," Judge Tydingco-Gatewood stated in her order.

GMH attorney Minakshi V. Hemlani said the ruling is important
because the court's decision on Compact Impact reimbursements in
this case could have opened up more litigation.  "The important
thing is the Compact Impact does not provide a private right of
action," Hemlani said.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood's decision and order comes after
Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan, Jr. in March recommended the
chief judge grant the hospital's request to dismiss the lawsuit
because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, documents
state.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood, after reviewing Manibusan's report,
decided to dismiss just two of Ms. Atesom's claims, but will also
allow Ms. Atesom 21 days to amend the third, fourth and fifth
claims in her complaint.


H&H FRANCHISING: Sued by Memberselect Over "Pascuzzi" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEMBERSELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL GONZALEZ, DENISE
GONZALEZ, H & H FRANCHINSING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a HOME HELPERS, a
foreign corporation, DM ENTERPRISES GROUP, INC., d/b/a HOME
HELPERS OF DUPAGE SUBURBS, an Illinois Corporation, and JUDITH
PASCUZZI, Case No. 2016CH12495 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
September 21, 2016), is brought pursuant to Section 2-701 of the
Illinois Code of Court Procedure for declaratory judgment against
the Defendants.

On March 18, 2016, Judith Pascuzzi, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against H & H
Franchising Systems, Inc., d/b/a Home Helpers, a foreign
corporation; DM Enterprises Group, Inc., d/b/a Home Helpers of
DuPage Suburbs, an Illinois corporation, Denise Gonzalez, and
Michael Gonzalez in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under case number 16 CV
3415.

In that complaint, Ms. Pascuzzi alleges, among other things, that
the Gonzalezes did not pay her in compliance with the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which resulted
in a loss of pay to which she was entitled.  Michael and Denise
Gonzalez are the officers of, and own and operate Home Helpers, a
franchise of H & H Franchising Systems, Inc.

MemberSelect issued a Homeowner's Policy to its named insured
Michael and Denise Gonzalez, with effective dates of March 2, 2013
through March 2, 2014.  At no time prior to the filing of the
Underlying Complaint did the Gonzalezes contact it about Ms.
Pascuzzi's wage demands, MemberSelect tells the Court.
MemberSelect states that in June 2016, the Gonzalezes made a
demand for coverage under the Policy to provide a defense to the
allegations made in the Underlying Complaint.

MemberSelect contends that in July 2016, it sent a denial letter
to the Gonzalezes explaining the bases for denial of the claim
pursuant to the Homeowner's Liability Policy.  MemberSelect argues
that it has timely denied the tender of the Gonzales' claim and
denied any coverage it afforded to the Gonzales for numerous
reasons as set forth in its Denial Letter.  Among other things,
MemberSelect argues that it does not owe any duty to defend or
indemnify the Gonzalezes under the Homeowner's Policy because, as
a whole, the Underlying Complaint does not allege bodily injury or
property damage caused by an occurrence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Costello, Esq.
          Scott B. Dolezal, Esq.
          BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON
          25 E. Washington, Suite 21 0
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 819-1100
          E-mail: tcostello@bestfirm.com
                  sdolezal@bestfirm.com

Defendant Judith Pascuzzi is represented by:

          Seth R. Halpern, Esq.
          Meredith W. Buckley, Esq.
          MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
          208 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1750
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427-9600
          E-mail: shalpern@mhtriallaw.com
                  mbuckley@mhtriallaw.com


ILLINOIS TOOL: Court Denies Motion for Sanctions in "Orozco"
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiffs'
motion to compel defendant's compliance with the court's April 11,
2016 order but denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions in the case
captioned, JUAN OROZCO and JUAN OROZCO-BRISENO, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., a corporation, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-2113-MCE-EFB
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs brought a wage and hour class action lawsuit against
defendant Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (ITW), alleging claims for (1)
unfair business practices, (2) failure to pay overtime, (3)
failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, and (4)
failure to pay wages due at separation of employment. The
complaint also seeks relief under the California's Private
Attorney General Act of 2004.  The court previously issued a
scheduling order that bifurcated the discovery process and limited
all discovery in Phase I to facts relevant to whether this action
should be certified as a class action.

On December 8, 2015, the court granted in part plaintiffs' motion
to compel defendant's response to discovery requests. Of
significance here, defendant was ordered to produce, within 7
days, its statewide policies for employees' meal and rest breaks.
Defendant sought reconsideration of that order from the assigned
district judge. Although that motion was denied on February 5,
2016, plaintiffs contend that defendant did not fully comply with
that order until May 13, 2016. They explain that defendant
initially produced redacted documents and that it was not until
after plaintiffs voiced complaints that defendant's removed
redactions from the relevant parts of the documents.  Plaintiffs
contend, however, that they were prejudiced by the untimely
production because by May 13, 2016, they had already completed
eight depositions of Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses.

Plaintiffs' pending motion seeks the imposition of sanctions
against defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 due to
defendant's failure to timely comply with two discovery orders.
Plaintiffs also argue that defendant failed to comply with the
court's April 11, 2016 order, which required defendant to produce,
among other things, class members' wage statements, time records,
and schedules. Specifically, plaintiffs request that the court
strike defendant's answer and enter its default for its failure to
timely comply with the court's December 8, 2015 and April 11, 2016
orders.

In his Order dated September 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/aLJB8J from Leagle.com, Judge Brennan concluded that
the sanctions plaintiff seek is not warranted because defendants
have since produced all responsive documents with the exception of
class members' time sheets, which is produced on September 21,
2016 and that the discovery violations substantially interfered
with the rightful decision of the case.

The court granted in full plaintiffs' March 9, 2016 motion to
compel further discovery responses and their July 20, 2016 motion
to compel compliance with the court's April 11, 2016 order.
Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable expenses incurred in
bringing these motions and shall submit a declaration detailing
the reasonable expenses plaintiffs incurred in litigating their
March 9, 2016 and July 20, 2016 motions to compel within 7 days of
the order.

Juan Orozco is represented by Norman Blumenthal, Esq. --
norm@bamlawca.com -- Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. -- aj@bamlawca.com --
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Ruchira Piya
Mukherjee, Esq. -- piya@balawca.com -- and Victoria Bree
Rivapalacio, Esq. -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- BLUMENTHAL,
NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK

Illinois Tool Works, Inc. is represented by Christina Theresa
Tellado, Esq. -- ctellado@reedsmith.com -- and Thomas E. Hill,
Esq. -- thill@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


IRADJ SHARIM: Accused by "Rancan" Suit of Sexual Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH RANCAN v. IRADJ SHARIM individually and d/b/a IRADJ
SHARIM, M.D., PA; IRADJ SHARIM, M.D., PA; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-
10, Case No. MER-L-1899-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer Cty.,
September 21, 2016), is brought pursuant to the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination (sexual harassment) in a place of public
accommodation and in the course of a contractual relationship.

Ms. Rancan, a diabetes sales representative for Quintiles
Incorporated, asks the Court to order the Defendants to cease and
desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made going
forward, both as to the specific Plaintiff and as to all other
individuals similarly situated.

Iradj Sharim is a physician maintaining a medical practice known
as Iradj Sharim, M.D., PA, located in Trenton, New Jersey, in the
County of Mercer.  Iradj Sharim, M.D., PA, is a medical practice
maintaining its principal place of business in Trenton and is a
place of public accommodation within the meaning of the LAD.  ISMP
is associated with Capital Health Regional Medical Center, located
in Trenton, not at present a party to this litigation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700
          E-mail: kevincostelloesq@aol.com


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Firefighters Lose Consent Decree Issue Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that it doesn't
pay to wait 15 years if you're trying to proceed with a motion on
a consent decree, as Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Gerald Maatman points
out.

A Florida judge recently dismissed such a motion after the city of
Jacksonville stopped following a class action consent decree that
made sure the city maintained a proportional amount of black and
white firefighters.

The city entered into the consent decree in 1971 in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida with all
current, past and future black firefighters in Jacksonville.  This
required the city to hire a proportionate amount of black and
white firefighters.

The city ceased to follow the decree without any official
authority to do so in 1992.  It wasn't until 2007 that the
plaintiffs brought the issue to court, but the judge threw it out
because of the delay and then dissolved the consent decree.  The
plaintiffs had sought to show cause of why the city ceased to
follow the consent decree.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision on appeal in Coffey, et al. v. Braddy,
et al. on Aug. 23.

Mr. Maatman said the case was quite strange.

"It's a very unusual situation," he told Legal Newsline in a
telephone interview.  "It's unusual for the consent decree to fall
by the wayside and not be policed."

Mr. Maatman said that is because there is usually a strict set of
incentives to stay within the agreement, usually punishable if not
followed, but that was not the case here.

"There are usually reports and there are fees even because the
decree is tantamount to a court order," he said.

"For whatever reasons, the plaintiffs didn't actively monitor the
situation.  It wasn't until years later that they tried to take
action.  It's a pretty remarkable decision."

Mr. Maatman could only speculate on why the plaintiffs in this
particular case waited so long to take action on the consent
decree issue.

"Who knows?" he said.  "I would speculate that the group of
plaintiffs may have retired or grown old, passed on . . . The case
was so old that their law firms may have changed.

"For whatever reasons, the issues fell to the wayside.  Years and
years went by.  Every lawsuit has a docket number and this one,
you can tell, goes way, way back."

Mr. Maatman said this ruling could have meaning in any number of
industries in the private sector and any employment-related
litigation.

"It has a meaning for any employer, not just a public employer,"
he said.  "It's a bellwether ruling for employment-related
litigation, not just a fire department."

The 11th Circuit held up the court opinion that the city should
not have to defend itself against a claim that was delayed without
a reasonable excuse.

That amount of time, the court reasoned, would make it impossible
for the city to defend itself against such claims and for the
court to make the required findings.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Bedtime Baby Products Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Steinberg, writing for Consumer Advocacy News, reports that
with the fourth baby powder cancer trial is currently underway,
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) decided to throw in the towel with another
lawsuit over its baby products.  J&J agreed to settle the class
action lawsuit over fraudulent marketing claims on its Bedtime
Baby line of products.

The original lawsuit, which was filed in July 2015, claimed the
company engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, and false advertising,
sales, and marketing practices.  The company's products line
boasted claims the products were clinically proven to help babies
sleep better.  Advertisements encouraged parents to utilize the
products in nighttime routines to help their children sleep, but
the lawsuit alleges the company knew this was a false statement.
There have been no clinical studies supporting the claim the
products help babies sleep.

The company's Bedtime Baby products include Bedtime Baby Bath,
Bedtime Baby Lotion, Bedtime Baby Moisture Wash, Bedtime
Washcloths, and Bedtime Baby Bubble Bath & Wash.

It would be optimistic to think J&J learned its lesson with this
lawsuit.  The reality is the company has agreed to pay a measly $5
million to reimburse hundreds of thousands of consumers.  With a
proof of purchase, consumers can receive approximately $3 for up
to 10 purchased products.  Considering the company's consumer
products division accounts for millions of dollars in sales each
year, the settlement is barely a drop in the bucket for the
company.

The company might have decided to settle solely to free up
resources to fight the growing number of baby powder cancer
lawsuits.  J&J is facing thousands of pending lawsuits, but the
litigation has the potential to grow into the tens of thousands.
The company already lost three baby powder trials so far, and more
are scheduled for the near future.  For J&J, the resolution of
these lawsuits will be much more than the $5 million it's paying
out for the Bedtime Baby products.


JOY GLOBAL: Class Suits Seek to Block Vote on Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 3, 2016, that the
plaintiffs in several class action lawsuits have moved for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Joy Global
shareholder vote on a merger agreement.

Joy Global Inc. (the "Company" or "Joy Global") is making the
following supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the Company
on September 2, 2016, as amended on September 29, 2016, to provide
additional information concerning certain litigation relating to
the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated
as of July 21, 2016, by and among the Company, Komatsu America
Corp. ("Komatsu"), Pine Solutions Inc. ("Merger Sub"), and (solely
for the purposes specified in the Merger Agreement) Komatsu Ltd.,
pursuant to which, among other things, subject to the terms and
conditions thereof, Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a subsidiary of
Komatsu (the "Merger"). The following supplemental disclosures
should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which
should be read in its entirety. To the extent that information
herein differs from or updates information contained in the Proxy
Statement, the information contained herein supersedes the
information contained in the Proxy Statement. Defined terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Proxy
Statement.

Several putative class action lawsuits relating to the Merger were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin on behalf of putative classes of Joy Global's public
shareholders, Oduntan v. Joy Global Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
16-cv-1136, filed August 24, 2016; Soffer v. Doheny, et al., Civil
Action No. 16-cv-1148, filed August 26, 2016; Gordon v. Joy Global
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-1153, filed August 26, 2016
(collectively, the "initial federal cases").  A number of
additional putative class action lawsuits have subsequently been
filed in the same court on behalf of putative classes of Joy
Global's public shareholders: Rote v. Joy Global Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-1186, filed September 2, 2016; Tansey v.
Joy Global Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-1201, filed
September 6, 2016; McGregor v. Joy Global Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 16-cv-1213, filed September 8, 2016; Duncan v. Joy
Global Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1229, filed September
13, 2016 (collectively, the "additional federal cases").  The
additional federal cases were not previously disclosed in the
Proxy Statement and contain allegations similar to those in the
initial federal cases that were disclosed in the Proxy Statement.
Also on August 26, 2016, a putative class action, Garfield v. Joy
Global Inc., et al., 16CV006588, was filed in the Circuit Court of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Joy Global, its directors,
Komatsu, Komatsu Ltd., Goldman Sachs and unnamed Goldman Sachs
employees (the "state case" and, together with the initial federal
cases and the additional federal cases, the "Lawsuits").

On September 15, 2016, plaintiff in the Oduntan action moved for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Joy Global
shareholder vote on the Merger.  Plaintiffs in several of the
other federal actions subsequently joined in that motion.

On September 23, 2016, plaintiff in the Garfield action moved for
a temporary injunction to enjoin the Joy Global shareholder vote
on the Merger.

Joy Global denies the allegations of the Lawsuits, believes that
the definitive Proxy Statement disclosed all material information,
and denies that any supplemental disclosure is necessary.  Joy
Global is disclosing this information solely for the purpose of
avoiding the expense and burden of litigation.  The Duncan case
remains outstanding.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, a special meeting is being
held on October 19, 2016, at 7:30 a.m., local time, at 100 E.
Wisconsin Avenue, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53202, for the purpose of considering and voting upon, among other
things, the Merger Agreement and the Merger. The Company's board
of directors unanimously recommends that the Company's
shareholders vote "FOR" the proposal to approve the Merger
Agreement and "FOR" the other proposals being considered at the
special meeting.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Home Inspection Fee Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., has cleared JPMorgan
Chase and Citibank of claims they defrauded homeowners who
couldn't pay their mortgages during the Great Recession, bringing
a contentious four-year battle to a close.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in two orders
issued late on October 5, that the plaintiffs in both cases had
failed to assert claims of fraud and unjust enrichment against
Chase and Citibank over what the homeowners said were unjustified
fees to inspect their homes after they went into foreclosure.

According to Citibank, loan servicers are required to periodically
inspect delinquent properties to ensure they're being maintained
and to protect their value.

The July 2012 suits brought by eight plaintiffs in Alabama,
California, Oregon, Maryland, New York and Tennessee claimed that
neither bank was authorized to charge the inspection fees, and
that the banks misled them into believing the fees were valid.

Both sets of plaintiffs also accused the banks of hiding the
charges on their mortgage statements under vague titles like
"miscellaneous fees" and "corporate advances."

Gonzalez Rogers refused to certify state and nationwide classes in
the cases last year, leaving intact only the plaintiffs'
individual fraud and unjust enrichment claims, among others. Those
claims arose out of a combined $287.15 in inspection fees charged
to the Chase plaintiffs and $310.50 charged to the Citi
plaintiffs.

In granting both banks' motions for summary judgment on the fraud
claims, Gonzalez Rogers found that the plaintiffs' assertions that
Chase and Citibank misrepresented the fees were lacking as a
matter of law.

"This is an opinion of law not subject to a fraud claim," Gonzalez
Rogers said in both rulings.

Chase and Citibank had argued that the plaintiffs failed to state
a claim for fraud. They said the plaintiffs' claim that they
misrepresented their contractual authority to charge the fees is
an issue of law and not of fact, and a fraud claim can't be based
on a misrepresentation of law.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed, noting that the plaintiffs merely
challenged the banks' legal opinions that they had the right to
charge the inspection fees under the terms of the mortgages.

"These allegedly fraudulent statements are not actionable," she
said in the Citibank ruling. "They are nothing more than Citi's
legal opinion of the effect of the terms of the mortgage
agreement. No fraud claim may be based thereon."

Gonzalez Rogers made an identical finding in her ruling for Chase.

In attempting to persuade Gonzalez Rogers, the Chase plaintiffs
argued that their fraud claims were actionable because Chase's
misstatements implicated fact. The judge wasn't convinced.

"The core legal proposition at the center of Chase's statements
was that it had a contractual right to assess plaintiffs for the
property inspection fees," she said. "Any factual assumptions
underlying the legal opinion do not transform the statement from
one of law to fact."

And in the case of Citibank, the question was whether it violated
the terms of the mortgage agreements, not whether it
misrepresented its contractual authority, Gonzalez Rogers said,
noting that fraud claims are barred under the laws of the Citibank
plaintiffs' home states of Alabama and New York if a breach of
contract claim can be made instead.

"This is a classic breach of contract claim inappropriately
repackaged as fraud," Gonzalez Rogers said.

Gonzalez Rogers similarly demolished the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims based on state laws.

Chase had argued that the unjust enrichment claims failed because
the mortgage agreements defined when the plaintiffs could be
charged for property inspections. In other words, Chase didn't
violate the terms of the mortgages by charging the fees, the bank
said.

And while Chase conceded that the plaintiffs could have levied a
claim for breach of contract, it said the homeowners couldn't
prevail on an unjust enrichment claim under California, Oregon or
Tennessee law.

Gonzalez Rogers concurred, saying the laws of those states all
hold that unjust enrichment claims fail when a contract outlines
the rights of the signatories.

"There is no dispute that the mortgage agreements provide that
Chase can charge plaintiffs for property inspection fees in
certain circumstances," she said. "Allowing the unjust enrichment
claim to proceed between plaintiffs and Chase would effectively
alter the terms of the mortgage agreement."

In Citibank's case, Gonzalez Rogers noted that an unjust
enrichment claim can't be brought under New York and Alabama law
if the underlying fraud claim fails. Such claims, she said, can
only be asserted in "unusual situations" when there hasn't been a
contract violation.

"Plaintiffs do not allege some 'unusual situation' warranting
recovery under unjust enrichment here," Gonzalez Rogers said.

Chase inspected plaintiff Diana Ellis' home 26 times during the
nearly six years she was delinquent on her mortgage. It charged
her for eight inspections, two of which were later waived, for a
total of $63.15.

Citibank charged plaintiffs Gloria and Ronald Stitt for six
inspections totaling $81 while they were in default.

The Chase and Citibank plaintiffs were represented by Mark Pifko
-- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- and Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd in Encino, California.

Chase was represented by Robert Wick -- rwick@cov.com -- of
Covington & Burling in Washington.

Citibank was represented by Stephen Kane -- skane@mayerbrown.com
-- of Mayer Brown in Chicago.

None of the attorneys for plaintiffs could be reached for comment
on October 6.

The case is captioned, DIANA ELLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. J.P.
MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants., Case No.: 12-cv-03897-
YGR (N.D. Cal.).


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Bellino" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TINA BELLINO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., Defendant, No. 14-cv-3139 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S.
Roman denied the motion for summary judgment filed by JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

On March 17, 2004, Tina Bellino obtained a $300,000 mortgage loan
from JPMC to purchase a house located at 46 Highland Avenue in
Tarrytown, New York.  On May 11, 2012, Bellino sold the house.  At
some point thereafter, Bellino used the proceeds from the sale to
pay off the outstanding principal, interest, and fees due on the
mortgage.  JPMC received a check for the pay-off amount on May 14,
2012 in Columbus, Ohio, and a satisfaction of mortgage was sent to
the Westchester County Clerk for recording via Federal Express on
June 13, 2012.

Bellino initiated the putative class action against JPMC, alleging
violation of Section 275 of the New York Real Property Law ("RPL
section 275") and Section 1921 of the New York Real Property
Actions and Proceedings Law ("RPAPL section 1921") (collectively,
"the Statutes").

JPMC argued that the Statutes contain two separate 30-day deadline
provisions.  The first provision requires mortgagees to "arrange"
to have a satisfaction presented within 30 days.  The second
provision requires that they actually make that presentation
within 30 days.  JPMC further argued that the use of an identical
deadline for both provisions indicates that the legislature
intended for "present" and "arrange to present" to have the same
meaning -- which is to mail (the satisfaction).  Thus, according
to JPMC, a satisfaction is presented for recording on the date
that it is placed with a mail service for delivery to the
appropriate county clerk.  Under this interpretation, JPMC
fulfilled its obligation to present Bellino's satisfaction for
recording when it gave the document to FedEx on the thirtieth day
after the mortgage was paid off.

In contrast, Bellino argued that the first provision of the
Statutes requires that a mortgagee "arrange" to have the
satisfaction presented within 30 days, including by contracting
with third-party services.  The second provision imposes strict
liability if the satisfaction is not received by the clerk within
that timeframe.  According to Bellino, JPMC violated the statute
by failing to ensure that the satisfaction was "presented to" or
received by the county clerk within 30 days after the mortgage was
paid off.

Judge Roman found that based upon its plain meaning, to "present"
something "for recording" appears to be a term commonly used to
describe the submission of legal instruments affecting real
property to the recording clerk.  The judge also found that the
most natural reading of the provisions of New York Real Property
Law is that a document is "presented" to the recording officer
upon receipt, and that outside of property law, other New York
statutes use the term "present" to indicate actual receipt.  The
judge also found that property-related New York case law does
imply that a document is "presented" for recording upon receipt.

Judge Roman concluded that a satisfaction is "presented" for
recording upon receipt by the county clerk.  Accordingly, the
judge construed RPL section 275 and RPAPL section 1921 to have
required that JPMC provide Bellino's satisfaction to the county
clerk for recording on or before the thirtieth day after Bellino
paid the balance due on her mortgage.

A full-text copy of Judge Roman's October 3, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/z9I9Cp from Leagle.com.

Tina Bellino, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory
Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson
-- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP, Todd Seth Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David J.
Cohen, Kolman Ely PC, pro hac vice.

Justo Moronta, Julia Moronta, Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas
Gregory Blankinship, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber, LLP & Todd Seth Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro
hac vice & Robert D. Wick -- rwick@cov.com -- Covington & Burling,
L.L.P., pro hac vice.


KB HOME: Court Approves Final Settlement Terms in Bejenaru Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
KB Home said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 4, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended August 31, 2016, that a Texas court has approved the final
settlement terms with respect to the Bejenaru wage and hour
litigation.

In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives
filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division
entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home.  The lawsuit alleged that we
misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
U.S.C. Sections 206-07).

In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a
nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial
involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015.

In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case
filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L.
Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al.  The lawsuit alleged
violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period
and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales
representatives.

The Company said, "Although the case involved a putative class of
individuals who were our sales representatives from September 2009
forward, the Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action.
In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the
Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory
damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs for both matters."

"On November 18, 2015, we reached a tentative mediated settlement
with the plaintiff representatives in both cases that was subject
to judicial approval. Under the terms of the tentative settlement,
we agreed to pay $7.5 million to a settlement administrator for
distribution to individual settling plaintiffs, subject to
obtaining releases from, and a specified threshold of
participation by, such individuals.

"On May 2, 2016, after further negotiations to resolve important
details related to the claims submission process for individual
settling plaintiffs, we reached final settlement terms with the
plaintiff representatives. The final settlement terms did not
change the settlement amount, which is intended to be inclusive of
all payments to settling plaintiffs and all related fees and
costs, or the required threshold participation level.

"On May 19, 2016, the Edwards court approved the final settlement
terms with respect to the Edwards case and, with the Bejenaru
court's consent, preliminarily approved the final settlement terms
with respect to the Bejenaru case.

"On September 15, 2016, the court approved the final settlement
terms with respect to the Bejenaru case.

"In 2015, we established an accrual for these cases in the amount
of $7.5 million, which we maintained at August 31, 2016."


LIFELOCK INC: Court Grants Final OK of $68MM "Ebarle" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States of
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiffs' motion for (1) final approval of the parties' proposed
class action settlement; and (2) an award of attorneys' fees,
costs, and named plaintiff incentive payments in the case
captioned, NAPOLEON EBARLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIFELOCK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00258-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle, Jeanne Stamm, Brian Litton, and Reiner
Jerome Ebarle filed the action against Defendant LifeLock, Inc.
provides identity theft protection services. They allege in the
second amended complaint (SAC) that Defendant's advertisements of
identity theft protection services violated Arizona's Consumer
Fraud Act.  The allegations concerned Defendant's promises to
provide: (1) "comprehensive" services in detecting fraud, (2)
timely and continuous alerts of potential fraud twenty-four hours
a day every day of the year, (3) security for customers' personal
data (credit card, social security, and bank account numbers), and
(4) insurance in an amount up to $1,000,000 against identity
theft.

The parties exchanged informal discovery requests before
participating in settlement discussions with mediator Justice
Howard Wiener on July 1, 2015. On November 3, 2015, the parties
executed a settlement proposed by the mediator after their second
mediation failed to reach a resolution. The key provisions of the
Settlement Agreement are (1) Defendant agrees to establish a non-
reversionary Settlement Fund of $68,000,000 for the benefit of the
eligible Class Members, which includes a Class and Subclass; (2)
Each Subclass Member will receive an automatic pro rata
distribution from the Subclass Fund.  Additionally, each Class
Member (including those who are also Subclass Members) can submit
a claim for $20.00 before the Claim Deadline, which will be paid
from the Class Fund;  and (3) Defendant has agreed not to oppose
an application for $10,200,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and
$2,000 to each of the four Class Representatives.

On July 21, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an
enforcement action against Defendant in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona (FTC Action); the alleged
violations overlap with the claims asserted in this case.
Defendant negotiated a separate agreement with the FTC that
provides for a $100,000,000 judgment in the FTC's favor for the
purpose of consumer redress. On December 22, 2015, the district
court in the FTC Action approved the settlement between Defendant
and the FTC, entered a money judgment of $100,000,000, and
directed Defendant to satisfy the judgment by depositing the money
in the District of Arizona's registry within five business days.

Plaintiffs' move for final approval of class settlement and.

In his Order dated September 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/w2W7Mf from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found
that the notice procedures adequate under Rule 23(e) and the
entire settlement comports with Rule 23(e). The Court also
concluded that the settlement is a result of good faith, arms-
length negotiations rather than as a result of fraud or collusion
and that the attorneys' fees and costs are fair and reasonable.

The Court approves the Settlement Amount of $68 million and
payments of attorneys' fees in the amount of $10.2 million and
service awards in the amount of $2,000 for each named plaintiff
and designated Garden City Group, LLC to act as the Settlement
Administrator.

Napoleon Ebarle, et al are represented by Michael W. Sobol, Esq. -
- msobol@lchb.com -- and -- Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. --
nsugnet@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP --
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. -- rpulliam@cbplaw.com -- and -- Joseph
Henry Bates, III, Esq. -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- CARNEY BATES &
PULLIAM, PLLC -- RoseMarie Maliekel, Esq. --
rmaliekel@clarencedyer.com -- CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP

LifeLock, Inc. is represented by Luanne Sacks, Esq. --
lsacks@sacksrickettscase.com -- and -- Cynthia A. Ricketts, Esq.
-- cricketts@srclaw.com -- SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP

                           *     *     *

John Hult, writing for Argus Leader, reports that the identity
protection company LifeLock inked a deal in federal court worth
$68 million to its customers.  A class action lawsuit against the
Arizona-based privacy protection company said it misrepresented
its services and overstated the dangers of identity theft.  An
amended complaint filed in the case said the company's services
were "limited in scope" and inferior to those offered for free by
banks.  The company had agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission
$113 million in December for related deceptive claim accusations,
the Phoenix Business Journal reported.  A company spokesperson
told the paper LifeLock is "pleased to put this matter behind us."


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announced on Sept. 29, 2016, the filing of a class
action lawsuit against LifeVantage Corporation concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between November 4, 2015 and
September 13, 2016. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm before the
November 14, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, LifeVantage
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that the Company lacked effective internal financial controls;
that LifeVantage improperly accounted for sales in certain
international markets, along with associated revenue and income
tax accruals; and that as a result of the above, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 13, 2016, the Company announced that it would delay
the release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2016 financial
results. The reason for the delay was for LifeVantage to carry out
an internal review of sales into certain international markets and
the revenue and income tax associated with those sales. The
Company stated that it is unable to estimate the impact of the
review to aspects of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2016 or any potential prior periods. When this
information was released, shares of LifeVantage decreased in
value, thus causing investors harm.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding the rights of
shareholders.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in
certain jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Lundin Law PC
Brian Lundin, Esq.
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
brian@lundinlawpc.com


LIVE NATION: Faces False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Pollstar Pro reports that a New York man filed a class-action suit
against Live Nation for alleged false advertising when the actual
cost of a ticket to a Rascal Flatts show at Nikon at Jones Beach
Theatre didn't match the amount posted on the company's website.

David Himber of Hempstead, N.Y., filed the suit on behalf of
60,000 concertgoers per season who are "victimized" by the
practice of "advertising one price for a ticket and then charging
a higher price when people arrive at the box office," according
the New York Daily News.

Mr. Himber says the price for the Sept. 1 event was advertised as
$49.50.  He claims he went to the venue's box office to purchase
the ticket, only to find a $6 surcharge was added making the price
$55.50.  He bought three tickets at that price anyway.

"The advertised price is available to nobody," attorney
Abraham Kleinman told the Daily News.  Live Nation does not
comment on pending litigation.  Turns out Mr. Himber has some
experience with federal courts.

According to the paper, he has filed three previous suits in
Long Island U.S. District Court -- one against the Automobile Club
of New York for printing too much credit card information on a
receipt; another against Intuit, which assessed insurance fees for
check stock; and reportedly settled yet another claim against
Walmart.


LLOYD & MCDANIEL: Court Okays Portion of Plaintiff Counsel Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted in part
Plaintiff's Petition for Payment of Attorney's Fees in the case
captioned, DENNIS CASTRO individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LLOYD & McDANIEL, PLC a Kentucky
limited liability company, PCA ACQUISITIONS V, LLC a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendants. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.,
Interested Party, Case No. 1:15-cv-00559-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.).

The plaintiffs brought the putative class and collective action on
August 10, 2012 against their employers, Konstantin Dergunov,
Lokeko Inc. (Lokeko), and Double "K" USA, Corp. (Double K), for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL or Labor Law). Specifically, the plaintiffs
complain that the defendants violated the FLSA and the Labor Law
by failing to pay an hourly rate of pay (29 U.S.C. Section 206(a);
12 N.Y.C.C.R.R. Section 142-2.1), and an overtime premium (29
U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1); 12 N.Y.C.C.R.R. Section 142-2.2) for
work performed in excess of forty hours per work week.
Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made
unlawful deductions from their pay in violation of the Labor Law
(12 N.Y.C.C.R.R. Section 195), and failed to maintain records as
required by the FLSA.

In his suit, Plaintiffs Dennis Castro (Mr. Castro) on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, alleged that the
Defendants violated the FDCPA by failing to effectively identity
the current creditor, in violation of section 1692g(a)(2) and
alleged that the Defendants' statement "because of interest, late
charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the
amount due on the day you pay may be greater" was false, deceptive
or misleading, in violation of section 1692e.

On February 26, 2016, the Court entered a final Order approving
the class action settlement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants
Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC (L&M), and PCA Acquisitions V, LLC (PCA)
(collectively, the Defendants). As part of the settlement
agreement, the Defendants agreed to discontinue the practices
alleged in Mr. Castro's Complaint, to pay Mr. Castro $1,000.00 as
a class representative, and to pay $21,550.00 to the class.

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. (Philipps) served as Class Counsel in
the matter and requested that the Court award it $72,302.50 in
fees and $3,104.96 in expenses, as well as $6,686.50 in fees to
Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, LLP (Taft). Defendants filed a
Response in Opposition to the amount of fees requested. On April
22, 2016, Class Counsel filed their Reply in Support of Petition
for Payment of Attorney's Fees and Expenses, in which they assert
that Class Counsel should be awarded the total amount of
$84,124.46 in fees and $3,410.50 in expenses to Philipps &
Philipps, Ltd., and $27,783.00 in fees to Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP; for time spent preparing and defending the fee
petition.

In her Entry dated September 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/uOKInm from Leagle.com, Judge Pratt granted Mr.
Castro a total of $77,253.31 in attorney's fees and costs for the
Philipps firm, and $27,783.00 for the Taft firm, for a total award
of $105,036.31 finding that the rates sought by the Philipps and
Taft firms are reasonable. The Court notes that Mr. Castro's
request for the Philipps firm has been reduced by $1,514.00 for
clerical work done by attorneys, $4,428.00 for vague entries on
the billing statement, $4,049.50 for unreasonable attorney's fees
in connection with the fees petition, and $290.15 for unallowable
costs.

Dennis Castro is represented by:

      John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
      JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
      5214 S East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227

            -- and --

      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD
      9760 S Roberts Rd one
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708)974-2900

Lloyd & Mcdaniel, PLC is represented by Joseph Shaw Messer, Esq. -
- messer@messerstilp.com -- Nicole Marie Strickler, Esq. --
strickler@messerstilp.com -- and Stephanie A. Strickler, Esq. --
sstrickler@messerstilp.com -- MESSER, STILP & STRICKLER, LTD

PCA ACQUISITIONS V, LLC is represented by Michael D. Slodov, Esq.
-- mslodov@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC

PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. is represented by Samuel D. Hodson, Esq.
-- shodson@taftlaw.com -- and Tracy Nicole Betz, Esq. --
tbetz@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP


MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Sands Appeals From Ruling in "Melendres" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Party Civil Contemnor Brian Sands filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres,
et al. v. Brian Sands, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02513-GMS, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Manuel De Jesus Ortega
Melendres, et al. v. Brian Sands, et al., Case No. 16-16659, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 30,
2016, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may face criminal
contempt charges after a federal judge referred him to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for violating court orders in a 2007 class
action to stop racially profiling Latinos.  The District Court
case was filed against Sheriff Arpaio and others.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow recommended that criminal
contempt charges be brought against Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy
Gerald Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey, and Sheriff Arpaio's former
attorney Michele Iafrate.  Judge Snow's decision comes after
finding in May that Sheriff Arpaio, Sheridan, and two other aides
were guilty of civil contempt.  The men disobeyed Judge Snow's
earlier orders to turn over video and other evidence in the racial
profiling case, and continued to enforce federal immigration law.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016;

   -- Appellant Brian Sands' opening brief is due on December 27,
      2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Manuel De Jesus Ortega
      Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto Jr., Jessica Quitugua
      Rodriguez, David Rodriguez and Somos America is due on
      January 24, 2017;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Movant-Appellant BRIAN SANDS, Non-Party Civil Contemnor, is
represented by:

          Monte Craig Murdy, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          2929 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 385-1040
          E-mail: craig.murdy@lewisbrisbois.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; JESSICA QUITUGUA
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; VELIA MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; MANUEL NIETO, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and SOMOS AMERICA
are represented by:

          Rebecca A. Jacobs, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7036
          E-mail: rjacobs@cov.com

               - and -

          Anne Lai, Esq.
          UCI SCHOOL OF LAW
          401 E. Peltason Dr.
          Irvine, CA 92697-8000
          Telephone: (948) 824-7722
          E-mail: alai@law.uci.org

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU OF ARIZONA
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
          Telephone: (602) 650-1967
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2676
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: asegura@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees JESSICA QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; VELIA
MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
MANUEL NIETO, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and SOMOS AMERICA are represented by:

          Hyun Sik Byun, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: hbyun@cov.com

Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is
represented by:

          Timothy D. Mygatt, Esq.
          USDOJ - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 14271
          Washington, DC 20044-4271
          Telephone: (202) 305-3334
          E-mail: Timothy.mygatt@usdoj.gov

Defendant MARICOPA COUNTY is represented by:

          Richard Kenneth Walker, Esq.
          WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC
          16100 N. 71st Street
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 483-6336
          E-mail: rkw@azlawpartner.com

Defendant JOSEPH M. ARPAIO is represented by:

          Justin Michael Ackerman, Esq.
          Eileen Dennis GilBride, Esq.
          JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
          40 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 263-7330
          Facsimile: (602) 200-7846
          E-mail: jackerman@jshfirm.com
                  egilbride@jshfirm.com


MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION: Union's Bid to Certify Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Allison D. Burroughs denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit titled LOCAL 589,
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, PARTICK F. HOGAN, TIMOTHY C. BROWN,
HERIBERTO CORA, ANDREW HUNTER, DAVID JORDAN, STEVEN MAHER, DENNIS
PERRY, ALLEN R. LEE, TRACEY SPENCER, JEFFREY WILLIAMS, and all
others similarly situated v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, Case No. 13-cv-11455-ADB (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs, 10 named Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority employees and their union, claim that they are owed
compensation from Defendant MBTA for after-work and between-shift
travel, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts
wage and hour laws.  The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class
action on June 17, 2013, on behalf of MBTA bus operators, train
operators, train attendants, streetcar operators, trackless
trolley operators and customer service agents, who were allegedly
required to travel from one assigned location to another during
their workday without compensation.

"Rather than move for summary judgment, Plaintiffs have again
moved for class certification, despite the fact that class
certification has already been denied twice -- first in February
2014 and then in December 2014.  The Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated any change in the underlying facts nor any discovery
developments that would warrant a different outcome this time
around," Judge Burroughs said in a memorandum and order.

"The breadth of the proposed class -- which includes full-time and
part-time employees, bus and streetcar operators, and any number
of split-shift travel combinations -- virtually assures that
individualized questions would overwhelm any common ones," Judge
Burroughs explained.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/SGL1s8 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union, Patrick F. Hogan,
Timothy C. Brown, Heriberto Cora, Andrew Hunter, David Jordan,
Stephen Maher, Dennis Perry, Allen R. Lee, Tracey Spencer and
Jeffrey Williams are represented by:

          Brian J. Rogal, Esq.
          Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
          ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING, HYNES & DUNLAP, P.C.
          100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
          Norwood, MA 02062
          Telephone: (781) 255-7700
          Facsimile: (781) 255-7750
          E-mail: brogal@angoffgoldman.com
                  phynes@angoffgoldman.com

               - and -

          Douglas Taylor, Esq.
          GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER, P.C.
          1727 King St., Suite 210
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 683-7780
          Facsimile: (703) 683-8616
          E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com

Defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is
represented by:

          Mark W. Batten, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Sivitz, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          One International Place, 22nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 526-9850
          E-mail: mbatten@proskauer.com
                  rsivitz@proskauer.com


MDC PARTNERS: Shareholder Lawsuit in New York Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2016, that MDC
Partners Inc. ("MDC Partners" or the "Company") announced that the
U.S. District Court presiding over North Collier Fire Control and
Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan, et al v. MDC Partners
Inc., et al, No. 15 Civ. 6034 (S.D.N.Y.), granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety with prejudice, and directed the Clerk of the Court to
"close the case."

"We are extremely pleased with the Court's decision," said Scott
L. Kauffman, MDC Partners' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
"We defended and promptly moved to dismiss this suit because we
believed strongly that the plaintiffs' allegations concerning the
Company's accounting practices and disclosures were without merit,
and it is gratifying that the Court dismissed this class action
case in its entirety."

                     About MDC Partners Inc.

MDC Partners is one of the fastest-growing and most influential
marketing and communications networks in the world. Its 50+
advertising, public relations, media, branding, digital, social
and event marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most
memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected
brands. As "The Place Where Great Talent Lives," MDC Partners is
known for its unique partnership model, empowering the most
entrepreneurial and innovative talent to drive competitive
advantage and business growth for clients. By leveraging
technology, data analytics, insights, and strategic consulting
solutions, MDC Partners drives measurable results and optimizes
return on marketing investment for over 1,700 clients worldwide.


MDL 2196: Bassett Received $1,428,000 Cash from Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Bassett Furniture Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended August 27,
2016, that cost of furniture and accessories sold for the three
and nine months ended August 27, 2016 includes the benefit of
$1,428,000 of income the Company received from the settlement of
class action litigation.

The Company said, "This benefit is included in our wholesale
segment. We were a member of the certified class of consumers that
were plaintiffs in the Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation
against various producers of flexible polyurethane foam. The
litigation alleged a price-fixing conspiracy in the flexible
polyurethane foam industry that caused indirect purchasers to pay
higher prices for products that contain flexible polyurethane
foam. In 2015 a settlement was reached with several of the
producers, though other producers named in the suit filed appeals
blocking distribution of the settlement. In June of 2016 the final
producer appeal was dismissed and we received $1,428,000 in cash
representing our share of the settlement, which is included in
cash provided by operating activities in our statement of cash
flows for the nine months ended August 28, 2016."


MERCK & CO: 3rd Cir. to Tackle American Pipe Precedence
-------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that Merck fought in the Third Circuit on October 5, to
block securities claims advanced under 40-year-old precedent that
is now at the heart of a circuit split.

The dispute hinges recent upheaval to the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in American Pipe v. Utah.

Institutional investors in particular say they have relied on the
safety net of American Pipe to avoid bringing potentially
duplicative litigation merely to avoid missing the window to sue.

Under American Pipe, investors could rely on their interests being
represented by the prospective class that filed suit within the
statute of limitations. If class certification was denied after
the statute of limitations had run, the tolling doctrine allowed
them to either intervene or bring their own claims.

A federal judge in New Jersey adopted this principle in advancing
the case at hand against Merck.

North Sound Capital initiated the lawsuit in 2014, claiming that
Merck delayed the results of a clinical trial performed on its
anti-cholesterol drugs, Vytorin and Zetia, to inflate shares and
reap hundreds of millions of dollars in undue profits.

At October 5,hearing, Paul Weiss attorney Dan Kramer urged the
federal appeals court o reverse.

Weiss said the investor plaintiffs should either be in a class, or
out of it, and should not be allowed to opt out after the result
simply because they don't like it. All actions, whether individual
or class-based, should be filed within the five-year statute of
repose, he said.

Daniel Hume, an attorney for the investors with Kirby McInerney,
meanwhile argued that the statute of limitations should not apply
since his clients' claims are not new.

American Pipe helps avoid unnecessary litigation, not to protect
defendants, the attorney argued.

The Third Circuit's ruling in this case is poised to break a
circuit split.

In 2013, the Second Circuit blocked investors from suing IndyMac
MBS for missing the three-year statute of repose in Section 13 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Though the 10th Circuit and Federal Circuit have applied class-
action tolling, the Sixth Circuit aligned this past May with
IndyMac.

The Sixth Circuit's ruling applied a five-year statute of
limitiations to general antifraud claims under the Exchange Act.

The Supreme Court had actually been poised to consider IndyMac
back in 2014, it subsequently dismissed the writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted.

Merck's case has attracted much interest from institutional
investors, 55 of which joined together in June for a supporting
brief on behalf of the plaintiffs.

U.S. Circuit Judges Patty Shwartz and Jane Richards Roth presided
over October 5, hearing, with U.S. Circuit Judge Morton Greenberg
joining via teleconference.


METALAST SURFACE: Investors File Class Action Over Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a federal class action in Reno, Nev., investors want to know
what a Nevada metal-coatings firm did with their $90 million.

Jerry Alexander and 21 co-plaintiffs sued Dean and Madylon
Meiling, of Nevada, two other people and several businesses, chief
among them Chemeon Surface Technology, Metalast Surface Technology
and three other Meiling entities.

The lawsuit filed on October 3, claims the defendants conspired to
defraud more than 900 investors of more than $90 million in metal
coatings businesses known as Metalast International, then MI94,
and now marketed by Chemeon Surface Technology, of Minden, Nevada.
The plaintiffs' investments began in 1994.

Alexander says lead defendants Dean and Madylon Meiling, who are
married, "planned, schemed and conspired" to "fraudulently take or
acquire the assets" of Metalast after telling the investors they
would provide additional capital to develop special metal
coatings.

Alexander says that to pull off the fraud, the "defendants feigned
negotiating, and finalizing the terms of the funding arrangement,
and misrepresented that defendant Janet Chubb was Meiling
defendants' legal representative, and that defendant James Proctor
was Meiling defendant's accountant and each was engaged to conduct
due diligence for the funding arrangement."

In the course of these "feigned negotiations," Alexander says, the
defendants "obtained access to confidential and proprietary
information," which they "secretly and improperly used to file a
receivership action" to obtain the assets of Metalast.

Alexander says that in April 2013 the Meilings, with Chubb's help,
filed a request to appoint Proctor as Metalast's receiver, and
that Proctor removed Metalast's manager and prevented its more
than 900 investors from protecting their investments.

Proctor appointed the Meilings to take over Metalast's operations
"for the purpose of devaluing" it and to "misrepresent that the
company could no longer continue as a going concern," according to
the complaint.

"The fraudulent scheme culminated with a contrived credit bid
'sale,' and the transfer and conversion of a majority" of
Metalast's assets to Chemeon, et al., according to the complaint.

Alexander says the Meilings, et al., "accepted and enjoyed the
benefits of the assets, goodwill, money and profits of the
plaintiffs, the class and Investment LLC," and the plaintiff class
is out more than $90,000,000.

Named as defendants are the Meilings, Chubb, Proctor, Chemeon,
Metalast, D&M-MI; DSM Partners, Meiling Family Partners, and
Meridian Advantage.

Alexander seeks class certification and actual and punitive
damages for fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
conversion, professional negligence, conspiracy, bad faith, breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Chemeon did not respond to a telephone request for comment.

Its website indicates that Chemeon's roots go back to 1994 as a
business-to-business provider of metal surfacing used to enhance
cleaning and sealing, resist corrosion, and improve durability and
paint adhesion.

Its coatings are used in several industries, including automotive,
aerospace, cookware, marine, electronics and several other global
industries, according the company website.

Chubb declined to comment.

No contact information could be found for the Meilings. Proctor
did not return a call seeking comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by David Lee --
DLee@lee-lawfirm.com -- with Lee, Hernandez, Landrum & Garofalo,
who was not immediately available by telephone on October 5.


MIDCITY FINANCIAL: Legal Battle Over Brookland Manor Heats Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Giambrone, writing for Washington CityPaper, reports that
after a company advanced plans to redevelop government-subsidized
housing in Ward 5 in September, attorneys for the property's
low-income tenants, who fear displacement, have replied with a
fiery memo arguing that the company's move shows even more "need
for immediate [court] action."

The plaintiffs' retort, filed on Sept. 29 and first reported by
the Washington Business Journal, follows MidCity Financial Corp.'s
September submission to the D.C. Zoning Commission of second-stage
architectural plans for a substantial part of a mixed-use project
at Brookland Manor.  A month earlier, attorneys for the tenants
had filed a class-action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for
D.C. alleging that MidCity's plans discriminate against tenants'
"familial status" (a protected class, under federal and local law)
because they do not contain four- and five-bedroom units that
would sufficiently accommodate those who currently live there.

Now, the tenants' lawyers say the company went ahead with its
second-stage plans, which were not due until Nov. 6, without
informing them or a judge, and before the court could rule on the
lawsuit filed in August.  For its RIA Block 7 component of the
project, MidCity proposes to redevelop 2.6 acres of the site into
a four-story apartment building with 130-plus units (up to three-
bedrooms-large), and a second building for roughly 200 seniors.
The company has come under scrutiny in recent months for its
eviction practices, which tenants and their backers have
characterized as aggressive.

"In light of Defendants' decision to hurry their redevelopment
plan forward without regard for this Court's adjudicative process,
the irreparable harm facing the Plaintiffs is even more apparent,
as is the need for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant's
attempts to infringe upon Plaintiff's housing rights," contend
attorneys Maureen Browne and Matthew Handley, of Covington &
Burling and the Washington Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs, respectively.  "Plaintiffs respectfully request
that the Court issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants
from taking any action to relocate on or off the property, evict,
or otherwise bring about the cessation of tenancy of any
leaseholder currently resident at Brookland Manor on the basis of
the proposed redevelopment plan."

MidCity's "actions remove any doubt that they have no interest in
allowing the adjudication of this case to halt their redevelopment
and the associated relocation of families," the attorneys add.

A representative from MidCity declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Zoning Commission records show that MidCity submitted a "notice of
intent" to file second-stage plans for the redevelopment on Aug.
4, giving it "at least 45 days" (or at least until mid-September)
to follow through.  The tenants' lawsuit was filed at the end of
August.

Community-based organization ONE DC joined the tenants in the
lawsuit.


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Court Knocks Down Portion of "Milliner" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in the case
captioned, CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MUTUAL
SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-03354-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

The class action is related to another class action separately
filed in this Court: Milliner v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel,
Ltd., No. 15-cv-1763 TEH (the Bock Evans Class Action). The Bock
Evans Class Action was brought by the same Plaintiffs as the
present class action, to challenge the "one size fits all"
investment approach implemented by their investment advisor,
Defendant Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. (BEFC).

Plaintiffs brought the present class action against Defendant
Mutual Securities, Inc. (MSI) because of MSI's relationship with
BEFC. Specifically, BEFC required that clients hire MSI as their
broker-dealer.  Plaintiffs allege one reason BEFC required clients
to use MSI is because Thomas Bock and Mary Evans, the principal
executive officers of BEFC, were registered representatives of
MSI.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek a ruling from the Court that MSI
owed Plaintiffs a duty to supervise its registered
representatives, Bock and Evans, including a duty to supervise
their outside investment advisory activities.

In his Order dated September 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/yC7wgi from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson granted
Plaintiffs' motion as to MSI's duty to supervise Bock and Evans
because (1) MSI was a broker-dealer registered with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA); (2) Bock and Evans
were registered representatives of MSI; and (3) MSI approved the
outside advising activities of Bock and Evans. These three facts
establish MSI had a duty to supervise the advisory activities of
Bock and Evans. This duty would not be altered by documents about
"who was giving the Plaintiffs investment advice and
recommendations, and in what capacity."

As to establishing MSI as a "control person" under Sec.20(a) of
the Exchange Act, the Court denied the motion because the
Plaintiffs fail to prove a prima facie case under Sec.20(a) of the
Exchange Act."

Joanne Brem, et al. are represented by Charles David Marshall,
Esq. -- cdm@marshall-law-firm.com -- MARSHALL LAW FIRM -- and --
David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq. -- dsglaw@comcast.net -- THE LAW
OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA

Mutual Securities, Inc. is represented by Timothy W. Fredricks,
Esq. -- Fredricks.T@wssllp.com -- Brandon S. Reif, Esq. --
Reif.B@wssllp.com -- Nazanin Afshar, Esq. -- afshar.n@wssllp.com
-- and Shelly C. Yoo, Esq. -- yoo.s@wssllp.com -- WINGET SPADAFORA
& SCHWARTZBERG LLP


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Appeal in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court is leaving in
place court rulings that found the NCAA's amateurism rules for
big-time college basketball and football players violated federal
antitrust law.

The justices on Oct. 3 rejected the NCAA's appeal in a class-
action lawsuit originally filed by former UCLA basketball star
Ed O'Bannon and other athletes.  The court also rejected
O'Bannon's separate appeal that called on the justices to
reinstate a plan to pay football and basketball players.

The effect of the high court action is to leave the NCAA
vulnerable to more legal challenges that are working their way
through the courts.

"While we are disappointed with this decision not to review this
case, we remain pleased that the 9th Circuit agreed with us that
amateurism is an essential component of college sports and that
NCAA members should not be forced by the courts to provide
benefits untethered to education, including providing any payments
beyond the full cost of attendance," NCAA chief legal officer
Donald Remy said in a statement.

In 2014, a U.S. district judge decided the NCAA's use of names,
images and likenesses of college athletes without compensation
violated antitrust law.  Judge Claudia Wilken ruled schools could
-- but were not required to -- pay football and men's basketball
players up to $5,000 per year.  The money would go into a trust
and be available to the athletes after leaving college.  Judge
Wilken also ruled schools could increase the value of the athletic
scholarship to meet the federal cost of attendance figure for each
institution.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year overturned Judge
Wilken's ruling on the payments of $5,000 but upheld the antitrust
violation.

The NCAA has said it already has addressed one aspect of Judge
Wilken's ruling by increasing the amount of aid schools may
provide athletes.


NATURE'S WAY: Must Face Class Action Over "Healthy" Coconut Oil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burger, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California federal judge denied most, but not all, of motions to
dismiss and strike a proposed class action lawsuit on Aug. 12 that
claimed Nature's Way falsely labeled and advertised its coconut
oil as healthy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strictly defines
"healthy" in food products and beverages, which restricts its use
in advertising and food and beverage product labels.  For example,
the FDA in October 2014 issued a public warning letter stating the
Premier Organics cannot make implied or implicit claims that its
Arisana Coconut Butter Whole Coconut Flesh product is healthy
because it contains too much saturated fat per serving.

This definition is implicit in California's False Advertising Law,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), all of which plaintiffs in Hunter v. Nature's Way assert
were violated when the defendant advertised and labeled its
coconut oil as being healthy.

They state they suffered financial losses because they would not
have purchased the product if these claims had not been made.

Nature's Way sought to dismiss the case and break the class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, contending that plaintiffs had not shown that the
alleged representations suggested its coconut oil was inherently
healthy or healthier than other food oils.

Ruling against the defendant's motions, Judge William Q. Hayes
found that plaintiffs' claims of misrepresentation were
sufficiently pled to warrant the case continuing.

He added that Nature's Way's advertising and labeling could be
misleading even though it was not clear that they were falsely
given the products' ingredients, Morrison & Foerster associate
Molly Smolen -- msmolen@mofo.com -- says.

Denying the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief was the most
significant aspect of the court's decision, Ms. Smolen told Legal
Newsline.

"The judge decided these plaintiffs had no standing because no
harm can be done in future, if, as they say as in this case, they
would not have bought the products had they known about the
allegedly misleading branding.  That implies they would not buy
the products in future," Ms. Smolen said.

"To the extent that the court validated most of plaintiffs' claims
and permitted the case to move forward, there's not a great deal
of significance to the ruling, given that this was only a motion
to dismiss."

Overall, the ruling's significance is more procedural than
substantive, she added.

"In a motion to dismiss, really all a judge is looking at is
whether or not plaintiffs' claims are legally valid; they are not
passing judgment on the merit of the claims," Ms. Smolen said.

"Those issues are more commonly handled at the class certification
stage, so really there's not a lot of import regarding progression
of the case."

Specifically regarding the motion to dismiss, Judge Hayes found
that the plaintiffs' claims were clear and plausible when they
asserted that Nature's Way violated food labeling regulations by
claiming that its coconut oil had a number of healthy uses because
it contained non-hydrogenated fats and no trans fat.

The court also supported the plaintiffs' claims under the
fraudulent and unlawful prongs of California's UCL by identifying
the allegedly false and misleading representations and cited
research studies that supported that.  That was sufficient to
warrant the case moving forward, the judge ruled.

Judge Hayes rejected the plaintiffs' claim under the Unfair
Competition Law's unfair prong, however.  In this instance, the
plaintiffs' allegations were insufficiently specific and did not
sufficiently allege facts that satisfied the statute's reasonable
consumer test.

Similarly, the court granted Nature's Way's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.  That the plaintiffs
would not purchase the product in future was implicit when they
stated they would not have purchased the product were it not for
the allegedly misleading labeling and advertising, Judge Hayes
reasoned.  Hence, there was no threat of their incurring further
financial injury and he dismissed their claim for injunctive
relief.


NOTIS GLOBAL: Final Fairness Hearing Continued to Oct. 17
---------------------------------------------------------
Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 3, 2016, that the
date for Final Fairness Hearing for the Class Action has been
changed.

As reported in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2015, Notis Global and the class plaintiffs in
Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO
(JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (the "Court") on December 1, 2015,
notified the Court of a settlement. The Court stayed the action
pending the Court's review of the settlement and directed the
parties to file a stipulation of settlement. On December 18, 2015,
plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement that included the stipulation of settlement. On
February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement. The settlement provides for notice to
be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a final approval
hearing. The Court had scheduled the Final Settlement Approval
Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

On May 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order continuing the final
fairness hearing to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

On August 3, 2016, the Court issued another Order continuing the
final fairness hearing to September 22, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

On September 13, 2016, the Court issued another Order continuing
the final fairness hearing to October 17, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.


PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hiring Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Department
of Labor is suing Palantir Technologies Inc. and seeking to
terminate all of its government contracts for allegedly
discriminating against Asian applicants for software engineer
positions in violation of an executive order.

According to the DOL complaint, the Silicon Valley data analysis
company has been under investigation since 2011.  It alleges that
that for several software engineering positions, Palantir has
hired mostly non-Asian applicants despite the candidate pool being
overwhelmingly Asian.

The investigation found that from at least 2010, Palantir
"utilized a four-phase hiring process in which Asian applicants
were routinely eliminated during the resume screen and telephone
interview phases despite being as qualified as white applicants"
with respect to the engineering positions.

"In addition, the majority of Palantir's hires into these
positions came from an employee referral system that
disproportionately excluded Asians," says the complaint, filed on
Sept. 26 in the Labor Department's administrative court.

The suit alleges that from a pool of 160 qualified applicants for
one engineering role -- approximately 85 percent of whom were
Asian -- Palantir hired 14 non-Asian applicants and 11 Asian
applicants.  "The likelihood that this result occurred according
to chance is approximately one in 3.4 million," the suit claims.

In an emailed statement, a Palantir spokeswoman said the company
denies the allegations.  "Despite repeated efforts to highlight
the results of our hiring practices, the Department of Labor
relies on a narrow and flawed statistical analysis relating to
three job descriptions from 2010 to 2011," the statement
continues.  "We intend to vigorously defend against these
allegations."

The Big Data firm got much of its seed money from the CIA and has
continued to contract with the government on security-related
work. Since 2010, Palantir has received government contracts worth
more than $340 million, according to the suit.

The complaint alleges that the company's hiring practices violate
Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors who do
over $10,000 in government business annually from discriminating
on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation.

"Federal contractors have an obligation to ensure that their
hiring practices and policies are free of all forms of
discrimination," Patricia Shiu, director of the DOL's Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a statement.  "Our
nation's taxpayers deserve to know that companies employed with
public funds are providing equal opportunity for job seekers."

Rose Darling, a spokeswoman for the DOL's office in San Francisco,
said the investigation was initiated after Palantir was selected
from a random audit of government contractors.  She noted that in
addition to cancellation of government contracts, the suit could
result in Palantir being barred from consideration from future
ones for a period to be determined by the judge.

The DOL's administrative court proceedings unfold much like
litigation in regular state or federal court, and do not take
place on an expedited timeline, according to Ms. Darling.  In the
meantime, Palantir's eligibility for government money will not be
affected, she said.


PENSION BENEFIT: Page Counsel's Bid for Additional Fees Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James E. Boasberg issued a contemporaneous order denying the
class counsel's motion seeking further fees in the case captioned
ESTELLA PAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION, Defendant. MARY COLLINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action Nos.
89-2997 (JEB), 88-3406 (JEB) (D.C.).

In 1986 and 1988, two class-action lawsuits were filed against the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) over the termination
of federally insured pension plans.  After extended negotiations,
the class counsel and the PBGC entered into a Settlement Agreement
in these suits in 1996.  The settlement-implementation phase
finally came to an end in 2002 with the settlement fund having
paid out over $922 million in benefits to class members.  When
these benefit payments were made, the class counsel, in turn,
received 8% of them as attorney fees, or around $75 million.

In April 2001, the parties worked out a Wrap-Up Agreement to close
out the settlement, which the court later approved.  The Agreement
also provided for the payment of class benefits to continue past
the formal shutdown.  Because the Settlement Director had
calculated benefits for some class members who had not yet been
located, the PBGC committed to pay benefits to these members
through its own Pension Search Program if they were later found.
The Agreement further offered incentives to the class counsel and
private address-search firms to continue to look for these
remaining class members for periods of time after the transition
to the Pension Search Program.

The wind-down did not go smoothly.  By the end of 2002, the PBGC
had begun paying settlement benefits through Pension Search, and
the Settlement Director had ceased its work. Several of the
administrative tasks necessary to shut down the Class Action
Settlement Board (CASB), however, had not yet been completed.  In
May 2003, the CASB's wind-up efforts collapsed completely.  The
PBGC then filed a motion to compel closeout of the settlement in
June 2003, alleging that the class counsel had stymied its efforts
to resolve the remaining tasks.  The class counsel disagreed,
claiming that it was the PBGC representatives who had walked out
on the CASB.  Upon the class counsel's request, the magistrate
judge ultimately decided to refer the dispute back to the CASB for
resolution.

Over the next six years, from 2007 to 2013, the class counsel and
the PBGC continued to try to resolve their issues through the CASB
with little to show for it.  In short, the class counsel continued
to refuse to complete administrative closeout tasks until the PBGC
agreed to an audit of Pension Search or to fund a resumption of
locator searches through a third party.  The PBGC, in turn,
refused to submit to an audit or to pay for locator searches,
which it thought the CASB had no authority to order or supervise,
unless the class counsel released it from the other settlement
disputes and closed up shop.

The PBGC continued, meanwhile, to pay settlement benefits to class
members through Pension Search despite this row with the class
counsel over the Wrap-Up Agreement.  In the decade after the Wrap-
Up Agreement transferred payment processing from the Settlement
Director to the Pension Search Program, the PBGC paid out more
than $111 million in benefits to almost 7,500 class members.  The
PBGC, moreover, subtracted the 8% attorney fees required under the
Wrap-Up Agreement for each payment.  From the start of the
settlement through 2010, the PGBC had paid more than 900,000
individuals -- over 96% of the class -- benefits totaling more
than $1 billion, and the class counsel had received over $85
million in corresponding attorney fees.

At the start of September 2012, the PBGC stopped subtracting
attorney fees from the benefits that it paid out to newly located
class members that month.  The benefits payments themselves also
slowed, and in some months no benefit payments were made at all.

In a May 2013 court-ordered mediation, the PBGC agreed to provide
an additional $250,000 to the class counsel to locate remaining
class members in exchange for the transfer of $4 million back to
the PBGC in leftover Settlement Funds.  Settlement-benefit
payments, accordingly, began to rise through the summer of 2014.

The class counsel began asking the PBGC to resume withholding the
attorney fees in anticipation of this uptick in benefit payments.
Although such request would on its face appear to violate the 10-
year limit on fees set forth in the Wrap-Up Agreement, the class
counsel nevertheless argued in a September 2013 email that they
were entitled to these fees because the PBGC had not participated
in the CASB meetings for five of the first 10 years covered by the
attorney-fee provision.  On December 4, 2013, the class counsel
attempted to assert a charging lien for these attorney fees on any
subsequent settlement-benefit payments.  On May 19, 2014, the
class counsel filed a Notice of Attorney Charging Lien with the
court, asserting a lien against all of the PBGC's assets.  On July
7, 2016, the class counsel filed a Motion to Enforce the Court-
Ordered Wrap Up Agreement and Charging Lien.

The class counsel first asserted that, despite its superficial
clarity, the provision is ambiguous about when the 10-year period
should run.  The class counsel maintained that this ambiguity
arises from the lack of a date in the sentence providing that the
fees will run for "a ten-year period."  Judge Boasberg, however,
found that the directly preceding sentence supplies the relevant
start date for the 10-year period: August 31, 2002.

The class counsel next argued that their interpretation of the fee
provision would better fulfill the Agreement's over-arching
purpose to encourage counsel to locate additional class members.
Judge Boasberg, however, ruled that the fee provision in the Wrap-
Up Agreement is not ambiguous, and this argument thus finds no
traction.

The class counsel's final argument is that the 10-year limit in
the attorney-fee provision should be extended because the PBGC
prevented the settlement benefits -- and thus the resulting fees -
- from being paid for some time during that period.  Judge
Boasberg explained that the doctrine of prevention is typically
applied to conditional contracts.  The judge found that the Wrap-
Up Agreement is not a conditional contract, as the PBGC is
obligated to perform under the Agreement irrespective of any
condition precedent.  Judge Boasberg also found that the record
does not show that the PBGC actually prevented the payment of
settlement benefits during the relevant time period.

A full-text copy of Judge Boasberg's October 3, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/jgslXl from Leagle.com.

MARY E. COLLINS, MARY F. CAPLES, ANNA M. VENDOLA, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark Alan Borenstein, TUTTLE & TAYLOR, Stephen
Robert Bruce, STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES.

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Charles Glaston Cole -- ccole@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON
LLP, Joseph J. Shelton, PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION,
Judith R. Starr, PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Molly
Bruder Fox -- mbfox@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP &
Gwendolyn Prothro Renigar -- grenigar@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE &
JOHNSON.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defending Consolidated Action in Dallas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 27, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit in Dallas Division.

Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas
Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and December 17, 2015. The
plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.


PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Judge Permits Researcher to Amend Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that
a federal judge in Seattle, Wash., gave eight University of
Washington birth-defect researchers 14 days to amend their lawsuit
seeking to protect their identities from an anti-abortion
crusader.

Eight employees of the University of Washington, Planned
Parenthood and three hospitals sued the university in August,
objecting to the disclosure of their identities in a public
records request from anti-abortion activist David Daleiden.

Daleiden released "undercover" videos last year that purported to
show Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling fetal tissue.
He and an associate posed as representatives of a medical research
company and made secret recordings of their meetings.

The videos sparked outrage and contributed to a Republican effort
to defund Planned Parenthood. Persuasive evidence that the videos
had been heavily edited also led to several lawsuits, and to
legislative action in California to protect medical professionals
from being secretly recorded.

In response to calls to investigate Planned Parenthood, Washington
Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued a report in November 2015
that stated there was no evidence that Planned Parenthood sold
fetal tissue or profited from donations for research purposes.

In February, Daleiden filed a public records request with the
University of Washington for documents about "the purchase,
transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues, human fetal
organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the University of
Washington Birth Defects Research Laboratory."

Daleiden filed the request with Zachary Freeman, with the Family
Policy Institute of Washington, an anti-abortion group.

They requested communications with the research lab and clinics
that provide abortion services in Washington and Idaho, and named
certain employees at the clinics.

Eight Doe plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in response,
seeking to redact their personal information from Daleiden's
request, "to protect their safety and privacy."

U.S. District Judge James Robart granted the employees a temporary
restraining order pending their motion for an injunction. Daleiden
moved to dismiss the action, which Robart granted October 4, with
qualifications.

Robart agreed with the plaintiffs that Washington's assistant
attorney general had the authority to waive sovereign immunity in
this case, but concluded that the allegations are not substantial
enough to support subject matter jurisdiction.

He granted them 14 days to file a third amended complaint, finding
that they could allege civil rights claims against the university
official who responded to Daleiden's public records request. If
they fail to respond by the deadline, he will dismiss their
complaint without prejudice, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The case is captioned, JANE DOES 1-10, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants., CASE NO. C16-
1212JLR (W.D. Wash).


PROMPT DELIVERY: "Davis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN DAVIS; CESAR JUAREZ an individual, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v.
PROMPT DELIVERY, INC. DBA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MESSENGERS; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. BC635686 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sept. 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages/overtime, meal
and rest period penalties, unreimbursed expenses, accurate
itemized wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Labor Code and the Wage Order.

The Plaintiffs and other Proposed Class Members were not properly
compensated for overtime because during a period of time,
Defendant paid them a straight salary and did not pay them
overtime pay for shifts over eight hours in one day or 40 hours
in one week.

Prompt Delivery was founded in 1989. The company's line of
business includes provides trucking or transfer services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com


PROVIDENCE AND WORCESTER: 4 Class Actions Challenge Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Providence and Worcester Railroad Company (the "Company") on
August 12, 2016, entered into a Merger Agreement (the "Merger
Agreement") with Genesee & Wyoming Inc. ("G&W") and Pullman
Acquisition Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger")
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of G&W. The Company is supplementing its disclosure regarding the
Merger in connection with litigation brought by purported
shareholders of the Company. Nothing in this Current Report on
Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth herein. The Company and the other named defendants continue
to deny any wrongdoing alleged in the litigation.

Providence And Worcester Railroad Company said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 3, 2016, that on or about September 21, 2016, the Company
and its directors were served with two lawsuits brought in the
Rhode Island Superior Court for Providence County (David Spring,
et al. v. Robert H. Eder, et al., Case No. PB-2016-4455 (R.I.
Super.) and George P. Assad, Jr. v. Providence and Worcester
Railroad Company, et al., Case No. PB-2016-4442 (R.I. Super.))
challenging the Merger.

On September 26, 2016, a third lawsuit was brought in the Rhode
Island Superior Court for Providence County by Michael John Kenny
(Michael John Kenney v. Providence and Worcester Railroad Company,
et al., Case No. PB-2016-4497 (R.I. Super.)) also challenging the
proposed sale of the Company to G&W.

On September 30, 2016, a fourth lawsuit was brought in the Rhode
Island Superior Court for Providence County by John R. Bartlett
(John R. Bartlett v. Robert H. Eder, et al., Case No. PB-2016-4591
(R.I. Super.)) also challenging the proposed sale of the Company
to G&W.

The purported class actions allege that the Company's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by failing to maximize shareholder value in approving
the Merger Agreement and that the Company and G&W and Merger Sub
aided and abetted this alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company strongly believes that its disclosures in the proxy
statement dated September 19, 2016 and mailed to shareholders on
or about September 21, 2016 (the "proxy statement") are
appropriate and adequate under applicable law and, along with the
other defendants, has vigorously denied and continues to
vigorously deny all of the allegations in the purported class
actions. Nevertheless, in order to reduce the risk of incurring
significant legal expenses in defending the litigation, the
Company has decided to make available to its shareholders certain
additional information in connection with the Merger and other
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.


PURE STORAGE: Shareholder Class Action Filed in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Pure Storage (flash
memory devices) and its directors and underwriters used
misrepresentations to raise $488 million in its IPO at $17 a share
and the price fell to $12 when the truth came out, shareholders
say in a class action in San Mateo County Court.


QUANELL X: Activist Faces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------
Troy Kless, writing for KBMT, reports that a group gathered to
publicly state their case against Houston-based activist Quanell
X.

One Beaumont man claims he paid $3,500 for help in his friend's
criminal case and was not helped.

He then found out others were also not getting assistance, even
though they had paid the activist thousands of dollars.

A frustrated group of community members prayed together outside
the Jefferson County courthouse on September 29.

These people claim Quanell X took thousands of dollars for legal
assistance but instead ran away with the money.

Harold Roberts says that he persistently called Quanell X, after
he paid $3,500 to Quanell X to assist Roberts in a legal case.

When he finally got a hold of Quanell X, he received a baffling
answer.

"I said man, I need my money back because you're not doing
nothing. He refused to give me my money back. He says, 'Mr.
Roberts I'm busy now I'll talk to you later,'" Roberts said.

Other members claim they received similar treatment from Quanell
X, paying money for his assistance in legal battles.

Quanell X offered a statement saying: "We welcome any member of
the human family to come to us for help but please tell us the
truth and the whole story. Often, people come to us for help
saying it's a race issue that caused the problem. When we
investigate we find out race had nothing to do with it. Just
because you retained my office to work for you that doesn't mean
we will lie for you."

And according to contracts obtained, QX Advisors is not a law firm
or attorney's office.

However, the group says they are sickened by the lack of help
they've received, and want their money back.

"Something needs to be done about this, you know, enough is enough
and that's why we decided to take a stand," Roberts said.

The group has set up a GoFundMe page, asking for $50,000 that
would be used for their legal representation.


RAPTOR PHARMA: Being Sold too Cheaply, Lawsuit Says
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders say in a
federal class action in Wilmington, Del., that directors are
selling Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp. too cheaply through an unfair
process to Horizon Pharma PLC and Misneach Corp., for $9 a share
or $800 million.


RITE AID: 10 Stockholder Class Actions Pending as of Aug. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 27, 2016, that as of August 27,
2016, the Company was aware of ten (10) putative class action
lawsuits that were filed by purported Company stockholders,
against the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants,
together with the Company, the Rite Aid Defendants), Walgreens
Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA) and Victoria Merger Sub Inc.,
(Victoria) challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger
agreement between the Company and WBA.

Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi
v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.).

One (1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Sachs Investment Grp., et al. v. Standley, et al.).

The complaints in these nine (9) actions alleged primarily that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate
price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly
prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other
interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect
against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with
the Merger. The Complaints further allege that the Company, WBA
and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were
consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation
Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the
Consolidated Action). In addition to the claims asserted in the
nine (9) complaints discussed, the operative pleading in the
Consolidated Action also included allegations that the preliminary
proxy statement contained material omissions, including with
respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and
the fairness opinion rendered by the Company's banker. On December
28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion
for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally denied at a
hearing held on January 5, 2016.

On March 11, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and
proposed order voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as
moot, while retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April
15, 2016, the Company reached a settlement in principle related to
this matter for an immaterial amount and on May 11, 2016, the
Court entered a stipulated order regarding notice of payment
thereof and final dismissal of this matter.

A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District
Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants and a claim
for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants and WBA (Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.).
The Herring complaint alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid
and its Board of Directors disseminated an allegedly false and
materially misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the
proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws, and an award of money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the
Herring action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a
motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Herring complaint. At a
hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court
orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and
subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction on January 28, 2016.

On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry
Herring, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead
plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On April 14,
2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to stay the Herring action for all purposes
pending consummation of the Merger.


RITE AID: Discovery Ongoing in Indergit Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 27, 2016, that discovery related to
the merits of the claims in the Indergit class action lawsuit is
ongoing.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for
overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion
for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.
The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.

The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to
liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and
former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related
to the merits of the claims is ongoing.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Status Conference in Hall Case Scheduled for Nov. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 27, 2016, that a status conference
in the Hall seating case is scheduled for November 18, 2016.

In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San
Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed
its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in
November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order
which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition
for review of the appellate court's decision with the California
Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014.

Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was
rendered on April 4, 2016.

A status conference in the case is scheduled for November 18,
2016. With respect to the California Cases, the Company, at this
time, is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits
or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said
lawsuits.


RUST-OLEUM: Class Action Over Deck Coating Products Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that a consolidated class-
action complaint is pending against Rust-Oleum Corporation ("Rust-
Oleum") seeking to have a class certified and alleging breach of
warranty, breach of contract and other claims regarding certain
deck coating products of Rust-Oleum.  In May 2016, the parties
executed a term sheet outlining the agreed-upon terms of
settlement. Upon final court approval, Rust-Oleum would deposit
$9.3 million into a settlement fund in satisfaction of the claims.

"We recorded the amount of the settlement in accrued losses in our
Consolidated Balance Sheets and reflected the amount in other
expense (income), net, in our Consolidated Statements of Income as
of and for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016," the Company said.


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announced on September 29, 2016, a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Seres Therapeutics, Inc.  Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between June 25, 2015
and July 29, 2016, are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance
of the November 28, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law
PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You
can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, Seres made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts
about its lead drug product candidate SER-109, touting its
potential and efficacy. On July 29, 2016, the Company announced
that the Phase 2 clinical trial of SER-109 did not meet its
primary endpoint. When this news was released, shares of Seres
fell in value, causing investors harm.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Settlement Reached in Canadian Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, Siskinds Desmeules sencrl and
Cohen Milstein ("class counsel") seeks approval from the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice of:

     1) settlement agreements with BDO Limited and W. Judson
Martin, Edmund Mak, Simon Murray and Peter Wang;

     2) the expansion of the settlement with William Ardell, James
Bowland, James Hyde and Garry West to include class members on
behalf of whom claims are asserted in the Quebec and US Actions;

     3) payment of class counsel fees in the amount of $1,666,761;

     4) the discontinuance of the Quebec Sino-Forest Corporation
class action against the directors and the dismissal of the U.S.
Sino-Forest Corporation class action against W. Judson Martin,
Edmund Mak, and others;

     5) the expansion of the Ontario class action to include
Quebec residents for the BDO settlement and expansion of the
Ontario class action to include Quebec residents and U.S. class
members for the settlement with W. Judson Martin, Edmund Mak,
Simon Murray and Peter Wang;

     6) the opportunity for the U.S. class members to exclude
themselves from this class action;

     7) proposed plans of allocation to distribute the settlement
funds obtained pursuant to settlement agreements with David
Horsley, BDO Limited, William E. Ardell, James P. Bowland, James
M.E. Hyde, Garry J. West, W. Judson Martin, Edmund Mak, Simon
Murray, and Peter Wang.

Objections to the settlement, if any, are due Nov. 9, 2016.

For more information, visit http://www.sinosettlement.comor call
1.866.474.1739

W. Judson Martin, Edmund Mak, Simon Murray, and Peter Wang
retained as counsel:

   Bennett Jones LLP
   4500 Bankers Hall East
   855 2nd Street SW
   Calgary, Alberta
   T2P 4K7 Canada
   Tel: 403.298.3100
   Fax: 403.265.7219

William Ardell, James Bowland, James Hyde and Garry West

   Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
   Reception Located on the 63rd Floor
   100 King Street West
   1 First Canadian Place
   Suite 6200, P.O. Box 50
   Toronto ON  M5X 1B8
   Tel: 416.362.2111
   Fax: 416.862.6666


SKYHOP GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Zurita" Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYER CIRTO ZURITA, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. SKYHOP GLOBAL, LLC, and KRISTINE SCOTTO, Case No.
0:16-cv-62250-WJZ (S.D. Fla., September 21, 2016), arises under
the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that the Plaintiff and the
proposed class have not been paid overtime or minimum wages for
work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

SkyHop Global, LLC, is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Broward County.  Kristine Scotto is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MESSENGERS: Baskerville Sues Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN BASKERVILLE, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MESSENGERS; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC634669
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 21, 2016), alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay him and the class overtime
premium pay, and meal and rest periods premium pay.

Founded in 1985, Southern California Messengers -- a privately
held company with its corporate offices located in Los Angeles,
California -- is a self-proclaimed leader in the transportation
industry and one of the largest delivery companies in Southern
California.  The provides regular and rush package pick-up and
delivery services from Fresno down to the border of Mexico,
including Las Vegas and its neighboring counties in Nevada,
utilizing a fleet of various types of vehicles including cars,
trucks, vans, and bobtails.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          William B. Richards, Jr., Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  bill@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consurnersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jihill@ckslaw.com


SOUTHERN LAND: Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in "Alyn" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States of
District Court for Middle District of Tennessee denied Plaintiff's
emergency motion for stay pending appeal in the case captioned,
LISA ALYN, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN LAND COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-CV-596 (M.D. Tenn.).

Lisa Alyn filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the
Court's denial of Southern Land Company, LLC's motions to seal
documents filed in support of its summary judgment motions. Alyn
has not filed any motion to place documents under seal.
Nevertheless, she seeks to appeal the Court's Memorandum and Order
of September 12, 2016 and Order of September 15, 2016 twice
denying Southern Land's motions to seal. Those Orders followed the
Court's Show Cause Order requiring Southern Land to show cause, in
light of recent opinions by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, why its motions to seal should not be denied.

Both Southern Land and Alyn responded to the Show Cause Order by
citing their Stipulated Protective Order as the basis to grant the
motions to seal. The Court denied Southern Land's motions to seal
because the Court of Appeals has made very clear that an agreed
protective order does not automatically create a sufficient legal
basis for a district court to place documents under seal.

Alyn then filed an emergency motion for reconsideration asking
this Court to reconsider and grant Southern Land's motions to
seal. In her emergency motion Alyn shifted from the parties
Stipulated Protective Order to a new argument to seal the
documents. She now says that the documents Southern Land filed to
support its summary judgment motions include her tax returns that
constitute "financial trade secrets" protected from public
disclosure under the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Tenn.
Code Ann. Section47-25-1702 (2013).

In response to Alyn's emergency motion, Southern Land conceded
that its motions to seal did not satisfy the Sixth Circuit's
requirements to place the documents under seal.

The Court denied Alyn's emergency motion and noted that the
Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not protect individual
tax returns from public disclosure and that Alyn had offered no
legal authority to the contrary.

Alyn seeks to appeal the denial of Southern Land's motions to seal
after Southern Land concedes that they are not well taken. The
Court turns to Alyn's motion for a stay pending appeal.

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/9SRS9h from Leagle.com, Judge Crenshaw, Jr. held
that Alyn is not likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal
because three weeks and several attempts after the Court's Show
Cause Order, Alyn still has failed to provide compelling legal
reasons to seal the documents filed by Southern Land in support of
its summary judgment motions and that on the harm to others and
the public interest if a stay is granted, both favor denial of
Alyn's motion to stay.

Lisa Alyn is represented by John P. Nefflen, Esq. --
jnefflen@burr.com -- and Thomas K. Potter, III, Esq. --
tpotter@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN, LLP

Southern Land Company, LLC is represented by:

      James R. Michels, Esq.
      Kevin P. Hartley, Esq.
      William C. Ferrell, Jr., Esq.
      TRUST TREE LEGAL, P.C.
      1321 Adams Street
      Nashville, TN 37208
      Tel: (615)852-8408


SOUTHERN TELECOM: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Southern Telecom Electronics
sells "tower speakers advertising four vertical speakers," online
and through major chain stores, but two of them are dummy speakers
with no wiring or function, a class action claims in Norfolk
County Court.


SUN LIFE: ECCC Requests Suspension of Trading
---------------------------------------------
Equity Cheque Card Corporation Limited ("ECCC"), the
Representative Plaintiff is requesting a suspension of trading in
the shares of Toronto-based SUN LIFE FINANCIAL and SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA ("SUN LIFE") on the grounds that there
are "serious questions about the company's assets, operations and
other financial information" as per the SEC regulations and
guidelines for suspension of trading.

ECCC alleges that Sun Life is in material non-compliance with GAAP
and IFRS by purporting to seek and obtain and then rely upon its
customers' permission for SUN LIFE to violate essential and
material accounting standards that are binding on SUN LIFE, and
that its customers and Trust Beneficiaries have no authority or
capacity regardless to grant SUN LIFE any such permission.

ECCC alleges that SUN LIFE appears to be illegally and unlawfully
capitalizing interest in advance while relying on express
disclaimers in its securities that the parties jointly and
severally agree not to comply with any and all civil and criminal
laws prohibiting the practice.

ECCC also alleges that SUN LIFE has been illegally and unlawfully
leveraging and/or subverting regulatory capital requirements via
such illegal and unlawful capitalization of interest in advance,
and without proper accounting, valuation and disclosure to
shareholders, the SEC, and other stakeholders.

ECCC alleges that SUN LIFE routinely and systematically demands
and registers securities from customers that contain wholly
fictitious claimed Principal Amounts and wholly fictitious
claimed Interest Rates, and which bear no relation to the
underlying transactions that are purportedly secured by the
securities.

ECCC alleges that SUN LIFE routinely and systematically demands
cash receipts for funds not in fact advanced or delivered and
subsequently obtains funding through constructive
and/or actual conversion of the false receipts.

ECCC alleges that by dealing in fictitious transactions and
securities SUN LIFE is making itself liable to allegations of tax
fraud by concealing, disguising or misrepresenting interest
income as unrealized capital gain.

ECCC alleges that SUN LIFE entered into Waiver of Tort settlement
agreement(s) in 2006 to settle the allegations and that current
Executive management at SUN LIFE have continued to purposefully
mislead the Regulator, Shareholders, the public at large and other
stakeholders as to these registered legal claims.

ECCC alleges that the legal and equitable right of property in
approximately CAD$33.3 billion of Assets Under Management
nominally held by SUN LIFE remain vested in ECCC and that SUN LIFE
has no otherwise legal or equitable claim to those assets.

ECCC is to be the named or Representative Plaintiff in a Class
Proceeding (Class Action) Lawsuit under the Province of Ontario
(Canada) Class Proceedings Act and/or foreign Jurisdictions, and
in a wholly independent International Equity Action to securitize
the said Assets Under Management as their true owner in law and in
equity.  In addition to the Directors and Executive Officers in a
personal capacity as provided by SUN LIFE's enabling
legislation, the Lawsuit(s) will also name SUN LIFE's internal and
external auditors and financial solicitors as co-defendants and as
material parties to the alleged non-compliances.

See 33 & 120-page report: www.ClassActionVersusSunlife.com


SUN LIFE: ECCC Seeks Equity Lien Class Action Participants
----------------------------------------------------------
To anyone who has ever obtained a mortgage, nominal loan or
advance of credit from SUN LIFE FINANCIAL and/or SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (collectively "SUN LIFE"), you are
invited to register to participate in a Class Action / Equity
recovery lien (Domestic) and/or International Equity Suit/Action
to provide for the legal dissolution and winding-up of SUN LIFE
for the purpose of liquidating its aggregate nominal Assets Under
Management ("AUM") in favor of the beneficial owners of the said
assets in law and in equity.

The Representative Plaintiff(s) is alleging that under
broadly-defined English law and equity, including that of Canada,
any such nominal security is incapable of passing to the Defendant
SUN LIFE as a legal instrument and that as such a constructive
trust was created at the instant of receipt of such equity by SUN
LIFE in favor of the nominal debtor who is the legal and equitable
issuer of same.

It is the position of the Representative Plaintiff(s) that there
exists a convergence of law, equity, and policy that the right of
property in any such security remains vested in its issuer and
that SUN LIFE always was and remains an Administrative Trustee in
possession of property owned in law and in equity by the original
nominal debtors/borrowers as issuers of the nominal securities.

This constructive trust requires Sun Life to disgorge all gains
benefits or advantage, directly or indirectly obtained from the
use of these Trust assets belonging to beneficiaries of the Trust
(Plaintiffs).

The above referenced defect/disclaimer in the nominal securities
is only one of more than a dozen like or similar defects that the
Representative Plaintiff(s) puts forward, anyone or more of which
results in the same legal and equitable remedy.

Sun Life Financial was intimately aware of thirty (30) separate
legal filings by Lawyers and Notary Publics through "Registered"
Canada Post to Sun Life's legal department, of the contingent
liability to their shareholders on the value of Sun Life's
Asset base over a period of 10 years (since 2006), and made
absolutely no attempt to alert their shareholders, and/or report
these pending legal claims to the different Regulators, the
Security Exchange Commission ("SEC") and/or other stakeholders.

Further, over the last five (5) months we have been communicating
with the Senior Council for Sun Life, Valerie Greifenberger and
Sun Life's Chief Executive Officer, Dean Connor, directly on these
legal claims against Sun Life.  They have both utterly refused to
seek direction from the Regulators, and Security Exchange
Commission which is their fiduciary duty to shareholders of Sun
Life, leaving us no other alternative but to directly engage all
stakeholders directly.

Request 33-Page detailed report: Equity Lien against Sun Life/
Representative

Plaintiff at: www.ClassActionVersusSunLife.com (including all
other details).


SUN LIFE: ECCC Issues Notice of Domestic, Int'l Equity Lien
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF DOMESTIC and INTERNATIONAL EQUITY LIEN

Preamble: A legal lien is based on registration, while an Equity
lien is based on publication and knowledge in fact EQUITY CHEQUE
CARD CORPORATION LIMITED ("ECCC") to begin liquidation of SUN LIFE
FINANCIAL INC. and SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA ("SUN
LIFE") based on 2006 CONSENT JUDGEMENT through registered
acceptance of administrative process by SUN LIFE.

In law SUN LIFE "has the capacity of a natural person, including
the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person" and is
legally competent to enter into binding contractual agreements in
its own right.

In 2006 SUN LIFE entered into a CONSENT JUDGEMENT now held by
ECCC.  Under the terms of the CONSENT JUDGEMENT, SUN LIFE agreed
that the company holds certain named securities in trust for the
named beneficiary, ECCC.

The 2006 CONSENT JUDGEMENT is based on a COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OF
FACT endorsed and ratified by both parties.

The mutually assessed and agreed value of the trust assets as at
May 10, 2016, is approximately $33.3 billion ($33,300,000,000) and
represents approximately 4.0% of SUN LIFE's Assets Under
Management (AUM).  SUN LIFE has now had ten years to restructure
its equity to account for the trust status of the assets as AUM.

The LIQUIDATION of the $33.3 billion of assets will be done
domestically and internationally.  The beneficial interest in the
TRUST ASSETS will be made available to parties domiciled
domestically in Canada, and in countries that are signatories with
Canada to certain international treaties to which Canada is
otherwise in breach/violation.

The Constructive and Actual Trust(s) also exist independent of the
CONSENT JUDGEMENT due to several independent issues of legal and
equitable estoppel.  The means or procedure by which SUN LIFE
obtains possession of nominal securities was made an offence under
the Criminal Code of Canada in 1981.  The specific
section of the Criminal Code was then expressly enjoined and
included as a "designated offence" under the aforesaid
international treaties.

The TRUSTS are created by the fact that the nominal securities
cannot pass to SUN LIFE as a holder in due course as that would
otherwise constitute a criminal offence.

In the result there is a perfected convergence of law, equity, and
policy, all of which hold independently that the said
assets have always constituted a TRUST in the mere custodial
possession of SUN LIFE as constructive TRUSTEE, and that they have
never ceased to be the legal and equitable property of their
issuer or assignee (ECCC).

The substance of the CONSENT JUDGEMENT in 2006 was that both
parties confirmed and agreed as to the facts and law that create
the TRUSTS; SUN LIFE is estopped from taking any other position.

ECCC will then seek formal legal liquidation of all of SUN LIFE's
Assets Under Management (TRUST ASSETS), approximate C$891 billion,
in order for ECCC to settle it's registered priority lien of $33.3
Billion; once all priority claims under the 2006 ECCC / SUN LIFE
CONSENT JUDGEMENT have been satisfied in a final settlement
agreement, the Class Action may proceed if warranted.

To quote National Banking Law Review on the precise issue (in
material part, emphasis added):

In response to the question of whether you are participating in
the commission of a criminal offence in the loans
described, the answer, in many instances, is yes--  bankers, and
possibly even their solicitors, may well be participating in
a criminal offence. (National Banking Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 3,
p. 43 (Part I), No. 4 (Part II)), PARTICIPATORY LOANS:
THE CRIMINAL PROBLEM).

Except that there isn't any maybe about it; that is what creates
the TRUST by Estoppel.  The larger issue is as to how SUN LIFE and
their solicitors could ever have believed that illegally and
unlawfully capitalizing/converting unearned-interest-in-advance
and then falsifying the registered securities to conceal it could
be anything other than criminal.  There are at least six primary
frauds committed and facilitated by the practice of falsifying
securities to overstate the creditor's investment or underwriting
and to conceal fees, bonuses and other kick-backs. They are:

1. Interest rate disclosure fraud, avoidance,
2. Accounting-book /GAAP/ IFRS fraud,
3. Third-party Unsecured-creditor fraud,
4. Taxation fraud, evasion,
5. Regulatory capital fraud, evasion and
6. Financial market and securities fraud.

The fatal flaw in SUN LIFE's business model is that,
notwithstanding the first category of interest rate disclosure
fraud, avoidance, the legal issuer of the security has no capacity
in law or in equity to give their consent to SUN LIFE to offend
against the other five.

In the meantime, pending a final settlement with ECCC by SUN LIFE,
the SEC and the TSE have a prima facie obligation to suspend
trading in the shares of SUN LIFE forthwith.

Request 33 & 120-page reports online:
www.ClassActionVersusSunLife.com


TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Definition of Class in "Meta" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Donald C. Nugent granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of
class counsel filed in the lawsuit captioned META, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION,
et al., Case No. 4:14 CV 832 (N.D. Ohio).

In his complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that he began purchasing
the red, toddler wipes from a Target store in Boardman, Ohio, in
July 2011.  Mr. Meta alleges that the Up & Up2122 brand of
flushable wipes caused the problems when they caked together in
his pipes and septic system after flushing, despite
representations on the product packaging and on Target's Web site
that the wipes are flushable, break apart after flushing, and are
safe for sewers and septic systems.  Based on these allegations,
Mr. Meta seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons
residing in the State of Ohio who purchased Target-Brand
'up&up(R)' 'flushable' moist tissue wipes and toddler and family
wipes.

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Nugent finds that class
certification is warranted with regard to the warranty claims
against Target only.  "The class mechanism is superior to other
methods available to the parties for a fair and efficient
adjudication of this specific controversy in this case. The class
definition is limited, however, to purchasers of the Nice-Pak
"Buckeye" formulation of Up & Up wipes from April 18, 2010 through
the discontinuation of that product formulation in 2014," Judge
Nugent opines.

Judge Nugent also appointed Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP and
Tycko & Zavareei LLP to serve as class counsel for the certified
class on the warranty claims against Target.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/QPDQ8c from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Christopher Meta is represented by:

          Andrew Silver, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com
                  jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  lcellini@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Daniel Frech, Esq.
          Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                  dfrech@spanglaw.com
                  dlansdowne@spanglaw.com

Defendant Target Corporation is represented by:

          Brian E. Roof, Esq.
          Denise A. Dickerson, Esq.
          SUTTER, O'CONNELL, MANNION & FARCHONE
          3600 Erieview Tower
          1301 East 9th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1831
          Telephone: (216) 928-2200
          Facsimile: (216) 928-4400
          E-mail: broof@sutter-law.com
                  ddickerson@sutter-law.com

Defendant Nice-Pak Products, Inc., is represented by:

          Dustin B. Rawlin, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-4235
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: dustin.rawlin@tuckerellis.com
                  jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com
                  john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
                  karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com


TIN INC: November 15 Drywall Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase drywall in Canada between September 2011 and
March 2016? If so, you might be affected by a class action
settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement, TIN Inc. has agreed to pay
CDN$100,000.  The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims
and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by TIN.

The settlement requires court approval in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec.  Settlement class members may express their
views about the proposed settlement.  To do so, you must act by
Octber 7, 2016.

Settlement class members may have the right to exclude themselves
from the class proceedings ("opt-out").  If you wish to opt-out of
these proceedings, you must submit a request to opt-out postmarked
no later than November 15, 2016.

For more information visit www.classaction.ca/drywall e-mail
drywallclassaction@siskinds.com or call 1-800-461-6166 x2286


TOSHIBA CORP: Oct. 11 Deadline Set for Views on LCD Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase LCD Panels and/or televisions, computer monitors
or laptop computers containing LCD Panels between January 1998 and
December 2006?

If so, you may be affected by class action settlements with
Toshiba and AU Optronics.  Pursuant to these settlements, Toshiba
has agreed to pay USD$2,150,000.00 and AU Optronics has agreed to
pay USD$8,680,000.00.  The Settlements are compromises of disputed
claims and are not admissions of liability or wrongdoing by
Toshiba or AU Optronics.

The settlements must be approved by the Ontario, British Columbia
and Quebec courts.  Settlement class members may express their
views about the proposed settlements to the courts.  If you wish
to do so, you must act by October 11, 2016.

For more information visit www.classaction.ca/lcd e-mail
lcdclassaction@siskinds.com or call 1-800-461-6166 x1315


TOSHIBA CORP: Oct. 11 Deadline Set for CRT Settlement Views
-----------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase CRTs (cathode ray tubes) or products containing
CRTs (including televisions or computer monitors) between March
1995 and November 2007?

Class actions have been commenced in Canada alleging price-fixing
in the CRT market.  Settlements have been reached in the class
actions with the Toshiba, Hitachi and LG Defendants.  Toshiba is
required to pay US$2,950,000, Hitachi is required to pay
US$2,050,000 and LG is required to pay CDN$7,750,000.  Tishiba,
Hitachi and LG are required to cooperate in the ongoing
litigation.  The settlements are a compromise of disputed claims
and are not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Toshia,
Hitachi or LG.

The settlements must be approved by the Ontario, British Columbia
and Quebec courts.  Settlement class members may express their
views about the proposed settlements to the courts.  If you wish
to do so, you must act by October 11, 2016.  For more information
about your rights and how to exercise them see Part III of the
long-form notice, available online at www.classaction.ca/crt

Register to receive future notices at www.classaction.ca/crt

Please keep copies of any purchase records.

Questions? Visit www.classaction.ca/crt, e-mail
crtclassaction@siskinds.com or call 1-800-461-6166 ext 1315


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Permits Rosenzweig to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the United States of District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint in the case captioned, ARON
ROSENZWEIG, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 16-227 (JMV) (D.N.J.).

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint as a putative
class action against Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI),
alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. Section1692, et seq., while attempting to collect a debt
owed to MTA Bridges and Tunnels EZ-Pass (EZ-Pass) arising out of
an unpaid toll. Plaintiff alleges that TSI engaged in deceptive
collection practices by misrepresenting that the debt was accruing
interest and that other charges could accrue under state law.
Plaintiff's theory is that the misrepresentations were made for
purposes of compelling immediate payment by threatening that the
debt's balance would increase.

On March 14, 2016, TSI answered the Complaint. No pre-answer, Rule
12 motion to dismiss was made. The initial conference was held in
May. The Court's initial scheduling order provided that motions to
amend were to be filed by June 22, 2016. Within a month of the
scheduling conference, Plaintiff expressed a desire to amend his
complaint and the motion to amend was filed prior to the deadline
in the scheduling order.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion to amend. He
seeks permission to file an amended complaint that adds
approximately 20 paragraphs of additional allegations to the
original complaint and counts for violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2 (NJCFA) and the New
Jersey Truth in Consumer Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-
15 (TCCWNA). TSI opposes the motion to amend claiming that
Plaintiff has unduly delayed in seeking to amend his complaint and
that the proposed amendments are futile.

In his Opinion dated September 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/X2DvpW from Leagle.com, Judge Falk held that delay
is not an issue in the case and there is no prejudice because
little to no discovery has occurred and discovery is currently
stayed and that the clams and arguments presented do not reflect
conspicuous futility.

Aron Rosenzweig is represented by:

      Daniel Zemel, Esq.
      Fred M. Zemel, Esq.
      THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM
      70 Clinton Ave., Suite 3
      Newark, NJ 07114-2012
      Tel: (973)525-2552

Transworld Systems Inc. is represented by Aaron Raphael Easley,
Esq. -- aeasley@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN &
ISRAEL, LLC


UNITED STATES: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Lawyers' Spying Case vs NSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
count another victory for National Security Agency whistleblower
Edward Snowden, whose leaks of top-secret records on mass
surveillance inspired the Third Circuit to revive a lawyer's class
action against the program.

After filing his federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania, attorney Elliot
Schurchardt's ran up against the same hurdle in challenging the
NSA's data-collection program that the American Civil Liberties
Union did in New York.

Both the ACLU and Schurchardt claimed the NSA violated their
rights and privileged communications by spying on them. The ACLU's
lawsuit challenged the agency's telephone-data scooping program,
and Schurchardt's complaint defended the sanctity of his emails.

But these cases stumbled because neither could initially prove in
court that the NSA used its long-suspecting spying programs
against them.

The ACLU first collided with this barrier in a complaint the group
filed with Amnesty International against national intelligence
director James Clapper in 2008.

Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Clapper v.
Amnesty emphasized that plaintiffs could not challenge the secret
surveillance if they could not prove that they were being
targeted. Critics called the ruling a catch-22 for privacy-minded
litigants.

All of that changed with Snowden's blockbuster leaks in June 2013,
months after the high court's February ruling.

Armed with this new evidence, the ACLU returned to court in New
York; conservative gadfly lawyer Larry Klayman filed in
Washington; and Schurchardt filed in his then-home of Pittsburgh.

As of October 5, all three of these lawsuits have vaulted their
first hurdle of standing, or the right to sue.

The Third Circuit's most recent decision, in Schurchardt's case,
spans 38 pages and devotes several paragraphs to Snowden's
revelations.

Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman noted in his ruling that
Schurchardt's suit focuses on "documents leaked to the Washington
Post and Guardian" regarding a "previously undisclosed electronic
surveillance program operating under Section 702 called PRISM."

"Slides from a presentation purportedly authored by the NSA
described PRISM as 'collect[ing] directly from the servers' the
full content of user communications exchanged using services
provided by several large U.S. companies -- including Microsoft,
Google, Yahoo, Apple and Facebook," Hardiman wrote.

In a phone interview, Schurchardt said that his lawsuit is more
ambitious than the one in New York.

"Telephone metadata, we believe, is a red herring," he told
Courthouse News. "But the holy grail here, and Mr. Snowden said
this repeatedly, is the email. And it's not the metadata of the
email. It's the content."

According to the ruling, the government "strenuously disputes"
that PRISM collects "all or substantially all of the email sent by
American citizens," but these allegations can proceed to discovery
-- subject to restrictions to protect classified information.

In essence, Schurchardt contends, the court told him, "We're going
to make it fairly difficult for you to do so because of the
government secrets defense."

Electronic Frontier Foundation's attorney David Greene, who wrote
a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Schurchardt, said that the
case revived by Third Circuit is similar to his organization's
lawsuit Jewel v. NSA in California.

Like the ACLU's case, the EFF brought its challenge in 2008.

The San Francisco-based group's case targets so-called "upstream"
surveillance of communications through fiber optic cables.

He said that the upshot of the Third Circuit ruling is that the
impact of the Supreme Court's Clapper decision, once thought to be
daunting, is more narrow than previously believed.

"The Clapper decision only really applies to pre-enforcement
challenges," Greene said, referring to actions against programs
not yet in effect.

He added that active data-collection programs do not face this
hurdle.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to an email
request for comment.


URANIUM ENERGY: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 29, 2016, Uranium Energy Corp (NYSE MKT:
UEC, the "Company" or "UEC") said the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas has entered a final judgment in
favor of UEC, dismissing the previously disclosed securities class
action lawsuit against the Company. The Court dismissed the action
in its entirety with prejudice to the plaintiffs. The Company
further announces that on September 26, 2016, the United States
Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the decision
following the plaintiffs' request for voluntary dismissal. As a
result, the judgment in favor of the Company is now final. No
settlement payments or any other consideration was paid by the
Company to the plaintiffs in connection with the lawsuit's
dismissal.

                    About Uranium Energy Corp

Uranium Energy Corp is a U.S.-based uranium mining and exploration
company. The Company's fully-licensed Hobson processing plant is
central to all of its projects in South Texas, including the
Palangana in-situ recovery (ISR) mine, the permitted Goliad ISR
project and the development-stage Burke Hollow ISR project.
Additionally, the Company controls a pipeline of advanced-stage
projects in Arizona, Colorado and Paraguay. The Company's
operations are managed by professionals with a recognized profile
for excellence in their industry, a profile based on many decades
of hands-on experience in the key facets of uranium exploration,
development and mining.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Class Action Alleges Overcharging for Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class-action lawsuit claims insurance giant UnitedHealth Group
caused customers to pay higher prices for prescription drugs to
the point where it would have been cheaper to buy the drugs
without insurance.

The federal lawsuit, filed October 4, in Minnesota federal court,
labels the alleged illegal charges as "clawbacks" and defines them
as excessive charges that UnitedHealth Group required pharmacies
to charge insured patients.

The class, headed up by lead plaintiff Anna Mohr, claims that
after these charges were collected by pharmacies, they were
"clawed back" and given to the insurance company.

In an example from the lawsuit, one class member was allegedly
charged a $50 co-payment for the drug Sprintec, and the pharmacy
was only paid $11.65 of the payment, with the rest being given to
UnitedHealth.

The class alleges that the scheme is based on deals with pharmacy
benefits managers, or PBMs, that do not allow the disclosure of
these extra charges.

"Insurer/PBMs contractually bind pharmacies to keep the clawback
scheme secret and they prevent pharmacies from informing patients
that their drugs could cost less if the pharmacy were permitted to
process the purchase outside of the patients' insurance plans,"
the 72-page complaint states.

The class claims that these kinds of charges were not authorized
under the insurance policies, as they go above and beyond the
actual cost of the drug and violate RICO laws the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

In addition to Mohr, Samantha Sohmer and Charles Wiltsie are also
named as plaintiffs. They seek class-action status and unspecified
damages for the alleged overcharging, and are represented by
Daniel Shulman of Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis.

This is not the first time UnitedHealth has been accused of an
overcharging scheme. In 2000, a case titled Smith v. United
Healthcare Services was filed in the same court against the
company and sought damages for a similar alleged scheme involving
co-payment overcharges.

In Smith, the lawsuit claimed that the insurance company played
fast and loose with definitions contained within its policies, as
the plans specified that the patients should pay the lesser of the
plan's co-payment or the actual cost of the drug, referred to in
the complaint as the "contracted reimbursement rate."

That rate, according to court records, should be the amount the
insurance company repays the pharmacy for filling a given
prescription drug, and plaintiffs in Smith claimed they were
overcharged.

The court granted the Smith plaintiffs summary judgment in 2003,
and in 2004 the case was settled through a court-approved
agreement that totaled $9.95 million and an additional $1.2
million for administration costs.

The proposed class in October 4, lawsuit claims that UnitedHealth
is violating the court's decision in the Smith case "by charging
plaintiffs and the class members here co-payments that were and
are higher than the amount that they repay the pharmacy for
filling a given prescription drug."

Tyler Mason, a representative of UnitedHealth Group, declined
Courthouse News' request to fully comment on the lawsuit, instead
saying, "We have not been officially served with the complaint,
and pharmacy benefits are administered in line with the coverage
described in the plan documents."


UTAH: Suit Over Delayed Defendant Treatment Certified
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Shenefelt, writing for Standard-Examiner, reports that Utah's
system of handling mentally ill criminal defendants appears to be
failing, a federal judge said in allowing a civil rights lawsuit
to proceed against the state.

Because of a persistent backlog at the Utah State Hospital, people
judged to be mentally incompetent to stand trail are stacked up in
county jails awaiting treatment to restore their competency, the
Disability Law Center said in a U.S. District Court suit filed in
September 2015.

In a memorandum decision on September 27, Judge Robert Shelby
agreed to certify the case as a class action. He earlier dismissed
a motion by the state that sought to have the case dismissed.

While state law sets out a process for treating suspects so their
competence may be restored and they can go to trial, "This
procedure does not appear to be working," Shelby wrote.

Wait times have tripled in three years, increased to 180 days for
a defendant to get into the State Hospital at Provo, the
Disability Law Center said. Sometimes more than 50 such defendants
are kept at county jails.

Some defendants awaiting treatment are being held "for periods
longer than the period to which they would likely be sentenced if
found guilty of the crime," the suit said. "But none of these
persons has been convicted of the crime for which they are being
held. All are presumed innocent."

Aaron Kinikini, attorney for the Disability Law Center, said on
September 28 the solution might not be to add beds and staff at
the State Hospital.

"There are some other models in other states where, through
creativity, they have turned a portion of a jail into a hospital
wing and are treating them there without hauling them to a
completely different facility," Kinikini said.

So Utah's problem is one of "resources, and kind of a lack of
imagination," he said.

"As a society, we are beginning to recognize we have major
problems in the criminal justice system," Kinikini said. "The old
model of just incarcerating people and talking about law and order
has to give way to a more humanitarian and thoughtful approach."

As of Septemer, 41 inmates judged mentally incompetent by Utah
district judges were in county jails, including six in Weber
County and one in Davis, Kinikini said.

In his ruling, Shelby noted that in 2014, the state began an
outreach program in which State Hospital staff members
periodically visit mentally incompetent defendants in county
jails. He said 28 defendants have been restored to competency
under the program, but added, "It is unclear at this early stage
of the proceedings what in-jail treatment incompetent defendants
receive."

The state Human Services Department declined to comment on
September 28. Questions were referred to the Utah Attorney
General's Office, where spokesman Dan Burton said there would be
no immediate comment.

The Disability Law Center's suit said inmates with severe mental
illness saddle jails with special discipline and management
problems.

"To protect these vulnerable people from bullying and abuse, jail
personnel frequently place them in protective custody or solitary
confinement, which only serves to aggravate the inmates' mental
illness." the suit said.

"For years, (the state) has failed to provide competency
restoration treatment within a reasonable period of time from the
date of the court order requiring treatment, as measured against
nationally recognized standards," the suit said.

The delays amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of
defendants' civil right to due process, said the suit, which asks
for a federal order compelling the state to more rapidly get
defendants into treatment.

Several Northern Utahns have been at the State Hospital for years
and are still not judged competent to stand trial. They include
Sun Cha Warhola, accused of strangling her two children to death
in Layton in 2010.


WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Misleads Doctoral Students, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Anne Uniss, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class-action lawsuit in Columbus, Ohio, claims for-profit
Walden University misled doctoral students about how long it will
take them to earn their degrees, drawing out the dissertation-
approval process to milk them for more money.

"Walden does not act like a university (for-profit or otherwise).
Rather, Walden acts like a for-profit corporation," lead plaintiff
LaTonya Thornhill alleges.

The complaint, filed on October 5, in Southern Ohio federal court,
contends that "Walden's marketing materials and recruiters misled
its students that their mostly student-loan financed doctoral
degrees would cost between $60,000-70,000 and take three years to
complete," claiming that after their course work was done, "the
dissertation process (the final hurdle to achieving a PhD) could
take as little as 13 or 18 months."

Thornhill says her problems began after she finished her pre-
dissertation course work.

"Instead of the promised 13 to 18-month dissertation period, the
Walden dissertation process created an endless routine of hurdles
and quarterly tuition payments. Students who believed they were
getting ever closer to obtaining their doctoral degree were in
fact stuck with decreasing resources, high faculty turnover,
disorganization and a lack of oversight, all of which increased
the length of the doctoral students' enrollments at Walden," the
74-page lawsuit states.

According to complaint, as the dissertation process stretched from
months to years, "Walden's promises of about $60,000-70,000 and 13
or 18 months to complete a dissertation became $100,000-200,000 of
crushing debt, while the dissertation process dragged on for
years."

For many students, the amount of their debt gave them "no choice
but to un-enroll so that they could dedicate themselves full time
to paying back their enormous student loans . . . without degrees
to show for their work," the complaint states.

Although the recruiters and their pamphlets claimed the doctoral
process would take about three years, Walden and its parent
company Laureate Education allegedly knew it would take much
longer.

Years after Thornhill "enrolled in the doctor of philosophy in
management program, Laureate admitted Walden designed that program
'to take 66 months to complete,'" the complaint states.

Thornhill and the class claim that these facts were withheld prior
to and during her enrollment.

The complaint alleges that Walden and Laureate also "admitted that
only 33 percent of doctoral students who graduated, finished the
program with the 66-month time frame."

That means less than 10 percent of the doctoral population at
Walden would graduate each year, Thornhill claims.

Thornhill seeks class certification and damages for claims of
fraud in the inducement, breach of contract and conversion.


She is represented by Alan Rosca of Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah
Carr & Kane in Cleveland, Paul Lesko of St. Louis, and Marnie
Lambert of the Lambert Law Firm in Columbus.

Walden University did not return Courthouse News' phone and email
requests for comment on October 7.

According to an NBC News report, Minnesota officials are
investigating Walden's online doctoral programs because of "an
increased number of complaints related to dissertations." The
report also notes that Walden paid President Bill Clinton, its
former honorary chancellor, $17.6 million over five years, before
he stepped down last year ahead of his wife's presidential
campaign.

In response to Thornhill's lawsuit, Walden President Jonathan
Kaplan told NBC News that Walden has a "decades-long track record
as one of the nation's leading universities committed to working
professionals."

"We can't comment on pending litigation, but it is unfortunate
that NBC News chose not to report that the lawsuit mentioned
involves a single student and that the complaints to [the
Minnesota Office of Higher Education] represent well under 1/10th
of 1 percent of Walden's students," Kaplan said.

Another student, Amos York, sued Walden last year over a data
heist that allegedly exposed the online school's 800,000 students
to identity theft.


WARREN RESOURCES: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
October 19, 2016 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Warren Resources, Inc., securities between
November 4, 2014, and June 2, 2016, inclusive. Warren Resources
investors have until October 11, 2016 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

According to the complaint filed in this lawsuit, throughout the
Class Period, Warren Resources and certain of its executive
officers misled investors regarding the solvency of the Company by
issuing false and/or misleading statements to investors. For
example, while Warren Resources had claimed that the Company was
"well positioned" to "ride out" and "successfully navigate" market
fluctuations, the Company nonetheless filed for Chapter 11
Bankruptcy on June 2, 2016.

If you purchased Warren Resources shares, you may move the Court
no later than October 11, 2016 to request appointment as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


WELLS FARGO: Bronstein Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company and
certain of its officers. The class action is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Wells Fargo
securities between Feb. 26, 2014 and Sept. 15, 2016, inclusive.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Wells Fargo's cross-selling efforts to retail customers were
part of a carefully designed plan to illegally open millions of
deposit and credit card accounts for customers without their
knowledge or consent, in an effort to generate fee income for
Wells Fargo and compensation rewards for defendants.

Wells Fargo also failed to disclose that the continuing internal
investigation had determined by the beginning of the Class Period
that employees in the Community Banking division were engaged in a
mass scheme to expand Wells Fargo's financial performance figures
by opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts, resulting in over 5,000 employee terminations.
Consequently, defendants' statements about Wells Fargo's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis as Wells Fargo stock traded at artificially
inflated prices, at a high of over $58 per share, which allowed
some defendants to sell more than $31 million worth of their own
Wells Fargo stock at artificially inflated prices.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/wfcor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Wells Fargo you have until November 25, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Shareholder Suit After Fake-Accounts Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that Wells Fargo has
been hit with a new shareholder lawsuit accusing its board of
directors and senior managers of "recklessly" allowing the
creation of roughly 2 million fake customer accounts, adding to
the bank's legal woes since the government slammed it with a
record fine.

Silicon Valley-based Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed the
shareholder derivative suit on Sept. 20 in state court in San
Francisco, where Wells Fargo is headquartered.  The complaint
seeks damages for the bank leadership's alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, which it says resulted in massive regulatory fines
and a decline in stock price, as well as "exposure to significant
potential liabilities from numerous lawsuits."

Indeed, a flurry of suits have already been lobbed against the
bank since the government announced on Sept. 8 it would fine Wells
Fargo $185 million for secretly opening unauthorized deposit and
credit card accounts.

On Sept. 19, Boston-based Block & Leviton filed a separate
derivative action alleging that the bank breached its fiduciary
duties by permitting a large retirement package for
Carrie Tolstedt, who oversaw the bank division responsible for
creating the fake accounts, and not clawing back any of her past
compensation.  Ms. Tolstedt reportedly retired with a package
worth more than $120 million.

Attorneys at Christensen Young & Associates filed a proposed class
action in federal court in Utah on behalf of bank customers.

The new shareholder complaint names as defendants John Stumpf, the
chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo who was grilled on Capitol Hill
earlier over the scandal, along with others on the bank's board of
directors and Ms. Tolstedt.

"This case represents a glaring example of a major bank that takes
advantage of consumers all in the name of greed," founding partner
Joseph Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- said in a prepared
statement.  "It represents the culture of Wall Street to drive the
stock price up in the name of false profits."

The suit specifically attacks Wells Fargo's internal sales
strategy, driven by the motto "Eight is Great," under which the
bank's directors and managers pushed for household customers to
use at least eight of the bank's financial products.  This
strategy "was absolutely critical to the company's bottom line and
its ability to reach financial and other metrics used with its
market analysts," the complaint says.

"Unbeknownst to plaintiff and the company's other shareholders,
Wells Fargo's reported financial results and success with its
cross-selling strategy was the result of rampant, illegal fleecing
of the bank's own customers," it adds, citing the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau's enforcement action.

In addition to damages, the suit seeks attorney fees, corporate
governance reforms to avoid a repeat of the scandal, and
"disgorgement of all improper, profits, benefits and other
compensation received by the defendants."


WESTLAND, MI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Water & Sewer Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LeAnne Rogers, writing for hometownlife.com, reports that Westland
residents began receiving letters notifying them that they are
part of a class action lawsuit challenging the city's water and
sewer rates.

The lawsuit, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleges that
fees charged by Westland for water and sewer are in excess of what
is needed to cover actual expenses, with the revenues used to fund
general operations. That effectively creates a tax in violation of
the Headlee Amendent, according to the lawsuit, which seeks a
refund and that the city be enjoined from future overcharging.

Westland denies overcharging and is fighting the lawsuit.

"They are suing everyone with a fund balance in their water and
sewer fund. Their argument is that we have a fund balance, so that
is evidence of overcharging," Westland Mayor William Wild said.
"The fund balance affects our bond rating. We need cash on hand to
pay bills. The water fund carries a big amount of receivables."

Westland bills for water every other month and carries $2 million
to $3 million in receivables in the water fund, on average. The
city spends approximately $33 million to operate and maintain the
city water and sewer system.

Attorney Gregory Hanley of Kickham Hanley, which filed the lawsuit
and has been involved in similar litigation with several other
area communities, didn't respond to requests for comments. The
plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Westland are two condominium
owners association, Deerhurst and Woodview. The lawsuit was
eventually granted class action status.

"We filed the lawsuit because we felt the issue was that it's not
a fee, it's a tax," Deerhurst resident property manager Sherry
Springer said. "That's about all I can say right now. We're not
out to get the city -- we're out to do what's right."

It wasn't too many years ago that Westland's water/sewer fund was
broke and operating on a $2 million loan from the city's general
fund. In an effort to get the fund solvent and self-sustaining,
the city council began looking at rates more frequently. In 2009,
auditors Plante Moran found the water fund was underfunded.

"We've been using a formula for setting rates and administration
charges against the water fund. Plante Moran does our audits,"
Wild said. "We've hired a third party expert to look at those."

The lawsuit contends the city is overcharging the water-sewer fund
too much for retirement expenses. "The expert said that we are
charging only for current people and we need to charge for all
water department retirees," Wild said. "We will have a third party
look at the rates."

With a water system 50 years old in some parts of the city, Wild
said the rate formula is designed to maintain the local
water/sewer system while also preparing for a potential disaster.
Reserve funds also are used to pay for emergencies, he said,
ranging from water main breaks to flood cleanup and claims.

The litigation class includes 26,000 current water customers, but
could include another 10,000 people who paid water bills and no
longer live In Westland, since the lawsuit covers a period going
back to 2009.

"In effect, people are suing themselves. We think it is a
frivolous lawsuit. We're going to fight it," Wild said. "We will
have a response on the city website."

A misconception, helped by an inaccurate Detroit Free Press
article, Wild noted is that Westland has high water rates. Based
on the average residential water usage of 13.5 units of water or
13,500 gallons, a Westland water customer pays $164.62. That's
about the middle compared to neighboring communities.

Inkster is at the high end with a $260.43 charge, followed by
$241.76 in Dearborn Heights and $212.28 in Wayne. Livonia is at
the bottom end at $125.85, although it's noted Livonia charges a
higher commodity rate for larger meters, subsidizing the pricing
for one-inch and smaller meters.

Wild also noted that this litigation is not related to flooding
that occurred in 2010 and 2011, to the ongoing water meter
replacement program or anything to do with lead pipes.


* Companies Beef Up Legal Team to Avoid Class Action, Disputes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that corporate
Australia is preparing for an increased litigation risk by
expanding in-house legal teams to include lawyers who specialise
in courtroom disputes.

Instead of running cases, these litigators are being hired to help
companies avoid class actions and other corporate disputes.

This trend has been identified by legal recruiter Mahlab after a
series of confidential roundtable discussions with lawyers from
the legal departments of leading companies.

Mahlab says in-house lawyers who specialise in litigation are
still the minority, but their numbers are growing because of the
risk associated with the regulatory burden on business and concern
about class actions.

"The market is becoming incredibly more regulated," said Mahlab
NSW managing director Lisa Gazis. This was one of the main
concerns of in-house lawyers because it increased the difficulty
of managing corporate exposure to the risk of litigation.

"Class actions are a significant factor," Ms Gazis said.

This coincides with predictions of a global increase in litigation
and corporate disputes.

After surveying 600 corporate lawyers in 24 countries, Norton Rose
Fulbright found 24 per cent expected more disputes this year
compared with just 13 per cent who expected a decrease.

The firm's annual litigation trends survey says the number of
companies with no lawsuits against them decreased from 25 per cent
last year to 19 per cent.

"Difficult market conditions in some industries, particularly
those affected by low oil prices, are creating a more litigious
environment," it says.

In Australia, the head of the firm's disputes practice believes
share-price disputes could be about to increase because of a new
approach to the law of causation.

"Recent intermediate court authority has supported the right to at
least plead a cause of action based on the notion of 'fraud on the
market' or 'market-based' causation," said partner Cameron Harvey.

"No doubt this will increase the appetite for representative
actions of this type."

Mr Harvey believes companies needed to take account of a number of
factors, including the debate over whether solicitors should adopt
US-style contingency fees, when managing their risk profile.

"I don't think companies need to be concerned, but they certainly
need to factor it in to their risk management for the medium to
long term," he said.

"They need to put procedures in place internally to at least
ameliorate to the greatest extent possible any litigation risk.

"But could they remove it once and for all? There's no prospect.
Internal risk management is becoming critical," Mr Harvey said.

In the class actions report by King & Wood Mallesons said it was
now common for class actions to be launched if a company's share
price experienced a significant decline.

While the impact of market-based causation was uncertain, the KWM
report said on one view this change would lead to a significant
increase in litigation.

The report found that 16 class actions were settled last year at a
cost of $411.38 million, well below 2014's tally of almost $1
billion.


* Third Circuit Creates Framework for Analyzing Numerosity
----------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Ann Shepard and Christine Stoddard of Carlton Fields, in
an article for JD Supra, reports that the Third Circuit recently
vacated class certification, granted by the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania after nearly a decade of litigation, in an antitrust
case alleging that a pharmaceutical company entered into
agreements with four generic drug makers that, acting together,
delayed the sale of generic drugs and prevented the creation of a
competitive market.

In the second part of its panel opinion regarding predominance
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the court found
that plaintiffs' damages model, which did not segregate the harm
caused by each agreement, satisfied both antitrust standing and
the Supreme Court's mandate in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend that a
damages model must comport with the theory of the case, which,
here, was that the four anticompetitive agreements acted together
to harm consumers.

The predominance inquiry, however, came second to the court's main
focus: the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a), which requires a
class to be "so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." The class at issue consisted of 22 wholesale
purchasers of the drug. Though the court refused to set a minimum
number of class members that would suffice for certification, it
cautioned that a class with fewer than 40 members requires a
particularly rigorous analysis. It then went on to set forth a
non-exhaustive list of factors for judges to consider in
conducting a numerosity inquiry. These include "judicial economy,
the claimants' ability and motivation to litigate as joined
plaintiffs, the financial resources of class members, the
geographic dispersion of class members, the ability to identify
future claimants, and whether the claims are for injunctive relief
or for damages." Moreover, the court noted that some factors are
entitled to greater weight; in particular, courts should take
special care to consider judicial economy and the ability of
individuals to litigate as joined parties, two of the main
objectives behind the class action device.

The panel opinion -- with one justice dissenting -- found that the
district court had erred in its numerosity analysis in two ways.
First, with regard to judicial economy, the Third Circuit panel
found the lower court improperly focused its analysis on the late
stage of the current litigation, particularly the fact that the
already drawn-out and costly case might be delayed further by
additional discovery and lawsuits in other jurisdictions.
Explaining that such considerations improperly favor a finding of
numerosity based only on the complex nature of a case, the Third
Circuit panel emphasized that the inquiry should instead consider
the efficiency of a class action versus joinder, with a particular
focus on docket control. Secondly, addressing class members'
ability and willingness to be joined, the Third Circuit emphasized
that a proper numerosity analysis weighs a class action on the one
hand against joinder on the other, but does not contemplate the
possibility of individual suits, which the district court had
erred in considering. The inquiry should instead focus on the
stakes at issue and the complexity of the case, which a court can
often evaluate by considering the costs of joinder versus a class
action. Here, the court emphasized that this was not "a run-of-
the-mill class action," as it involved sophisticated parties with
large claims who had the ability to litigate their dispute as
joined parties. The Third Circuit therefore remanded the case for
the district court to reconsider numerosity based on this newly-
established framework, which is likely to have implications that
extend well beyond this particular lawsuit.

In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., No. 15-3475 (3d Cir. Sept. 13,
2016).


* Two Sides to GST Class Action Against Developers
--------------------------------------------------
Rachel Ziv, writing for Riot ACT, reports that it seems everyone
is talking about the GST class action against ACT property
developers.

The public's ongoing suspicion of the developers has been fuelled
by the suggestion that the industry pocketed large sums of money
under the guise of collecting GST. This may not necessarily be the
case though, and from a tax and litigation perspective, the issue
could have significant impacts on the ACT economy.

Promoters of the class action indicate (in press statements) that
GST has been incorrectly charged in a very specific set of
circumstances.

These circumstances arise from the Federal Commissioner of
Taxation v. Gloxinia Investments Ltd case in the Federal Court in
2010. The Gloxinia case concluded that GST did not apply to the
sale of off-the-plan units, on the basis that the sale is not
considered a sale of a new "residential premises" -- because of
our unique leasehold system.

Although the impact of the Gloxinia case was largely reversed by
legislative changes to the GST Act in 2011, the changes left a few
scenarios where GST would still not apply. These are the
circumstances in which a purchaser can arguably make a claim
against a developer for GST they paid on the purchase of their
unit.

The criteria where GST would not apply to the sale of an off-the-
plan unit, and where the developer would be eligible to apply to
the ATO for a refund of GST they have remitted, requires that:

  1. the project is built on land subject to a long term lease,
     such as a 99-year Crown lease;

  2. a "wholesale supply" was made by the government to the
     developer, such as through the grant of a Units Plan;

  3. the "wholesale supply" was conditional upon particular
     building work being undertaken by the developer; and

  4. the developer was commercially committed to the project
     prior to Jan. 27, 2011.

Vik Sundar, tax specialist and Director at Chamberlains Law Firm,
notes that the conditions that give rise to eligibility for a GST
refund are complex -- and projects must be assessed on a case-by-
case basis. While broad allegations have been made that developers
have simply been pocketing GST moneys under these provisions, this
is not always the case.

"There are developers who did not know or did not receive correct
advice as to their eligibility for a refund, or made an error in
deciding not to apply for a refund," says Mr Sundar. "These
developers remitted GST moneys to the ATO in the normal course of
business, and have not made any windfall gain."

With GST moneys remitted to the ATO by many developers, some are
questioning what the class action could possibly be about. Rory
Markham, Director at Chamberlains Law Firm, has extensive
experience with funded class actions such as this one. Mr Markham
suggests that it is a numbers game, and sensible legal arguments
will come much later.

"What we are seeing in the litigation space is a glut of funding
for any number of interesting possible class actions," Mr Markham
said. "Litigation funders are interested primarily in the return
on their investment. This means that the legal team is at liberty
to go to great lengths to win any kind of payout, so that
plaintiffs pay the funder 30-40% of the damages awarded."

This would likely include going after developers who have remitted
GST to the ATO, although they had the opportunity to apply for a
refund.

Mr Sundar suggests that developers have the opportunity to be
proactive in rectifying any errors and returning GST moneys to
apartment purchasers, before the costs and risks of extensive
litigation burdens industry and consumers alike.

"Although there has been no wrongdoing on their part, some
developers are exploring the opportunity to apply for refunds from
the ATO and return GST amounts to consumers directly," Mr Sundar
said.

"A collaborative approach between industry and purchasers would
see the administrative cost of the refund shared between the
parties, with purchasers pocketing a great deal more of their
refund more quickly, than if they joined the class action."

Each development raises separate issues that need to be
considered. As Mr Sundar suggests, "Potentially, there are some
developers who collected GST from purchasers, and after obtaining
advice that GST would not apply, decided to pocket those monies.

But before joining the class action, owners of residential
apartments purchased off-the-plan should consider contacting the
developer directly, and exhausting all avenues of obtaining a
refund on a conciliatory basis."


                            *********

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  * * *