CAR_Public/161024.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 212




                            Headlines

365 W20: Faces "Massi" Suit in Southern District of New York
21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: "Corbel" Suit Moved to M.D. of Florida
21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: "Padilla" Suit Moved M.D. of Florida
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Flanigon" Class Action in Del.
ALASKA AIR: Court Wants Notice Before Merger Completion

AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Muller" Suit in E.D. of New York
APOLLO EDUCATION: Amended Complaint Filed in "Lomingkit" Suit
APOLLO EDUCATION: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Johnson-Hendricks" Case Settled
ATHENAHEALTH INC: St. Louis Heart Center's Suit Remains Stayed

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.Y. Over USD SSA Bond-Price Fixing
BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Rogers-Wilkinson" Suit Over Data Breach
BARNES & NOBLE: Illinois Court Dismisses Skimming Class Action
BMW: Settles Class Action Over Defective Water Pump
BRASILAGRO: Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Underway

BRASILAGRO: Appeal in Case v. IDBD Pending in Israel
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Nov. 10 Hearing on Bid to Amend Quebec Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Maine Court Dismissed Wrongful Death Actions
CAPITAL ONE: "Jeffrey" Suit Transferred from S.D. to N.D. Ga.
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action

COVANCE INC: "Bloomquist" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
CST BRANDS: "Zellner" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Couche-Tard
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Schools Face Class Action Over Camera Program
DGS CONSTRUCTION: "Amaya" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
DIRTBUSTERS FLEET: "Mooney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

EPCOT REALTY: "Yi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ESSEX PROPERTY: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Period
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Faces "Nahas" Suit in Del. Over sale to TIAA
EXPERT-MED: Oct. 25 Deadline Set to File Junk Fax Claims
FEDERAL-MOGUL: Faces "Raul" Suit Over Prop. Share Sale to Icahn

FIAT CHRYSLER: Female Managers Have Lower Pay, Suit Claims
FIAT CHRYSLER: Jeep Owners Let Down by ACCC's "Redress" Program
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Misclassification Suits Ongoing
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Suits Over Illegal Fees Pending
FIRST NBC: Parties Await Decision on Lead Plaintiff Bids

FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in N.Y. Over Desonide-Price Fixing
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Clobetasol-Price Fixing
GARDEN OF LIGHT: "Moreno" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
GREATER NEW YORK: Faces "Xiao" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GS DALLAS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Hyman" Suit Claims

HELIX ENERGY: Briefing Completed on Bid to Dismiss "Izadjoo" Suit
INFOBLOX INC: Faces "Lam" Suit in Del. Over Flawed Sale Process
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dec. 5 Class Action Opt-Put Deadline Set
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 74 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Appeal in Product Liability Suit Pending
KEMPER SPORTS: "Stapleton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KLA-TENCOR: Dismissal of Merger Related Actions Discussed
LOUISIANA: Hydrologist Report to Play Key Role in Walker Case
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Green" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Frazier" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Haygood" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Wieland" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LYFT INC: Faces "Bodie" Suit in Southern District of California
MAPCO EXPRESS: Settles 2013 Data Breach Class Action

MEMPHIS, TN: 6th Cir. Rules in Suit vs Police
METHOD PRODUCTS: Faces "Labrado Suit in N.D. of California
MICHIGAN: Detroit ICE Faces "Ongori" Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: 6-Month Oral Hearing to Begin September 2017
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Inactive

MYLAN NV: Dec. 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
NHL: Modifies Concussion Protocol Amid Class Action
NEW YORK: FDNY Employees to File Racial Discrimination Suit
NOTIS GLOBAL: Class Action Settlements Await Court Approval
NU BELLA: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in Eastern District of New York

OASIS GOODTIME: Faces "Ramsey" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
PAMPANGA FOOD: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
PELLA CORPORATION: Faces "Sturdivant" Suit in M.D. Fla.
PENNSYLVANIA: Corrections Dep't Faces Hepatitis C Class Action
PHILADELPHIA: Police Department Sued Over Speeding Tickets

PRIDE MOBILITY: NPC Mull Class Action Over Mobility Scooters
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Reversed "Burton" Case Dismissal
RAY BERRY: Faces "Morrison" Suit Over Sale of The Fresh Market
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 30 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During Q3
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 3rd Quarter

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 5 W.Va. IPIC Cases to be Tried in May 2017
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,421 Broin II Cases Pending in Florida
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Case on Nov. 16
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 2017 Status Conference Set in "Collora"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 2017 Status Conference Set in "Brown"

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Class Action Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Harris" Case Dismissed with Leave to Amend
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Smokeless Tobacco Case Sought
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Yet in ERISA Litigation
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Ruling in Shareholder Case Appeal

SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Faces False Advertisement Claims
SANTA FE NATURAL: Bids to Dismiss Mislabeling Case Due Nov. 3
SEI INVESTMENTS: Asked Court to Clarify Class Definition
SG OF POMPANO: "Edelsberg" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct to S.D. Fla.
STATE FARM: Forced Place Insurance Class Action Ongoing

STEEL DYNAMICS: To Settle Antitrust Lawsuit for $4.6 Million
SUMITOMO ELECTRIC: Nov. 17 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
SUNEDISON INC: 15 Lawsuits Consolidated in MDL 2742
SUNEDISON INC: Transferred Pyramid Class Suit to S.D New York
SUPERVALU INC: Consumer Suit Remains Stayed Pending Criminal Case

SUPERVALU INC: Feb. Settlement Conference in Suit Over C&S Deal
SUPERVALU INC: Still No Hearing Date in Data Breach Case Appeal
SYSCO CORP: Violates Labor Laws, Calif. Suit Says
THOMAS AQUINAS: Faces "Lanni" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRESEMME NATURAL: October 24 Settlement Claim Deadline Set

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Resume Settlement Negotiations
UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Results of Class Certification Hearing
UNITED STATES: Thrivent Sues DOL Over Class Action Waiver Rules
UNITED STATES: To Hear Ashcroft Appeals in 9/11 Class Action
UNITIL CORP: Plaintiffs' Individual Claims Remain Pending

VIZIO INC: Falsely Marketed Televisions, "Unie" Action Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: ChargePoint Seeks to Revive Dieselgate Settlement
WALGREENS BOOTS: Order Approving Class Action Settlement Reversed
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Granted in Part
WALGREENS BOOTS: Plaintiffs Agreed to Stay Pennsylvania Suit

YELP INC: Faces "Gruber" Suit in California Superior Court
YP ADVERTISING: $2.1MM Accord in Call Center Agents' Suit Okayed

* Class-Action Challenge to Block EU-Canada Trade Deal Fails


                            *********


365 W20: Faces "Massi" Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 365 W20 Apts Corp.
The case is captioned Carr Massi, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 365 W20 Apts Corp.,
ABC Management Corp., and Gelato Giusto USA LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08027-PKC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel.

ABC is a real estate consultant. It offers real estate management
services, real estate appraisal services, and real estate listing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (516) 783 9662
          Facsimile: (646) 435 4376
          E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: "Corbel" Suit Moved to M.D. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Corbel, Roxanne Haatvedt,
and Daniel Padilla, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. 21st Century
Oncology of California, a Medical Corporation and 21st Century
Oncology Holdings, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02944,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The Florida Middle District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02920-MSS-AEP to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

21st Century Oncology is a premier provider of state-of-the-art
radiation therapy and integrated cancer treatments.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Carey Gavin Been, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543 7861
          Facsimile: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  cbeen@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Neil Burnstein Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN POLINER LLP
          155 N Riverview Dr
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
          Telephone: (714) 620 1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701 0155
          E-mail: NEIL@FINEMANPOLINER.COM

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          Daniel Marc Goldberg, Esq.
          Matthew D Pearson, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          Tanya Lee Forsheit, Esq.
          Zachariah J. DeMeola, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
                  ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  dgoldberg@bakerlaw.com
                  mpearson@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
                  tforsheit@bakerlaw.com
                  zdemeola@bakerlaw.com


21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: "Padilla" Suit Moved M.D. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel M. Padilla, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 21st
Century Oncology Holdings, Inc. and 21st Century Oncology of
California, a Medical Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-03711, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02921-MSS-AEP to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

21st Century Oncology is a premier provider of state-of-the-art
radiation therapy and integrated cancer treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil Burnstein Fineman, Esq.
          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          FINEMAN POLINER LLP
          155 N Riverview Dr
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
          Telephone: (714) 620 1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701 0155
          E-mail: NEIL@FINEMANPOLINER.COM
                  ppoliner@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          Zachariah J. DeMeola, Esq.
          Matthew D Pearson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
                   ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
                  zdemeola@bakerlaw.com
                  mpearson@bakerlaw.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Flanigon" Class Action in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
that a complaint captioned Flanigon v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., C.A. 12794, was filed on October 3, 2016, in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action").

The Delaware Action was brought by Timothy Flanigon, who purports
to be a stockholder of Aegerion, on his own behalf, and also seeks
certification as a class action on behalf of all of the Aegerion
stockholders. The Delaware Action alleges, among other things,
that the Aegerion board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed transaction by agreeing to an
inadequate exchange ratio and engaging in a flawed sales process.
The Delaware Action further alleges that QLT Inc. and MergerCo
aided and abetted the alleged breaches. In addition, the Delaware
Action alleges that the September 28, 2016 Amendment No. 2 to the
Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the
proposed transaction is materially misleading.

The Flanigon complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed transaction, to rescind it or award recessionary damages
should it be consummated and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. Also on October 3, 2016, plaintiff in the Flanigon
Action filed motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary
injunction. On October 18, 2016, the court scheduled a hearing on
the motion to expedite for October 21, 2016.


ALASKA AIR: Court Wants Notice Before Merger Completion
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco on October 20, ordered Alaska Airlines to give him seven
days notice before completing its planned $4 billion takeover of
Virgin America, which faces a securities class action from
disgruntled investors.

The case is captioned, DANIEL GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALASKA
AIR GROUP, INC., and ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendants.,
No. C 16-05165 WHA (N.D.Cal).


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Muller" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Recovery
Service Incorporated. The case is titled Miri Muller, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
American Recovery Service Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-05714 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2016).

American Recovery provides commercial accounts receivable
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APOLLO EDUCATION: Amended Complaint Filed in "Lomingkit" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, that the lead plaintiff
in the Securities Class Action (Rameses Te Lomingkit et al.) has
filed an amended complaint which also focuses on statements and
omissions relating to military recruiting and the online classroom
platform.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2016, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, captioned Rameses Te Lomingkit et al. v. Apollo Education
Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 2:16-CV-00689-JZB. The plaintiff,
who allegedly purchased our shares during the specified class
period, filed this putative class action on behalf of the
plaintiff and all of our shareholders who acquired Class A shares
between June 26, 2013 and October 21, 2015 and seeks certification
as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages and costs.
The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, by us and certain of our officers for
making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material facts relating to the nature of our military
recruitment activities and the status of our online classroom
platform. The Court appointed the Government of Guam Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff on June 16, 2016. On August 15, 2016, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which also focuses on
statements and omissions relating to military recruiting and the
online classroom platform. We intend to vigorously defend against
the plaintiff's allegations."


APOLLO EDUCATION: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, that an appeal in the
class action alleging violations of Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws
remains pending.

On June 9, 2015, two former University of Phoenix employees filed
an action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Kentucky
alleging that they were wrongfully terminated from their positions
with the University in violation of Kentucky and federal law. In
this action, which is captioned Aldrich et al. v. The University
of Phoenix, 15-C-2839 (Jefferson Cty. Circuit Court), plaintiffs
also allege that the University violated Kentucky wage and hour
law by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime and other required
wages, and in connection with these wage and hour claims, they
seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
individuals employed by the University within the past five years
who performed a substantial part of their job duties in Kentucky.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf in
connection with their alleged wrongful termination and past due
wages, overtime compensation and other relief on behalf of the
class in connection with the wage and hour claims.

"On March 4, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration. On March 9, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of
their intent to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit. The appeal is currently pending," the Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Johnson-Hendricks" Case Settled
--------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, that on June 24, 2016,
Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks filed a class action complaint,
Johnson-Hendricks v. University of Phoenix, 2:16-cv-01434 (E.D.
Cal.) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California, alleging that University of Phoenix violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting class members
without their consent.

The Company said, "During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016,
we settled this matter for an immaterial amount, and the matter
has since been dismissed."


ATHENAHEALTH INC: St. Louis Heart Center's Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that motion for a
further stay in the case filed by St. Louis Heart Center, Inc.
remains in effect.

The Company said, "On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was
filed by St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition
alleges we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"). Following service, we removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215. On our motion, the federal court
initially stayed further proceedings (pending the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857),
but lifted that stay on February 3, 2016. We filed our Answer in
the case on March 8, 2016.

"Subsequently, on March 14, 2016, we moved for an additional stay
pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234,
regarding the validity of a regulation promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission relating to the claims asserted in the
petition. On May 16, 2016, the federal court granted the motion
for a further stay, which remains in effect."


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.Y. Over USD SSA Bond-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, on behalf
of itself, and, in a representative capacity, on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation; Bank Of
America, N.A.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bank
Of America Merrill Lynch International Limited; Citigroup Inc.;
Citibank N.A.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Citigroup Global
Markets Limited; Credit Agricole S.A.; Credit Agricole Corporate
and Investment Bank; Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc.; Credit
Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC; Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd.; Deutsche Bank AG;
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; Nomura Holdings, Inc.; Nomura
Securities International, Inc.; Nomura International PLC; Hiren
Gudka; Amandeep Singh Manku; Shailen Pau; Bhardeep Singh Heer,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07991 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2016), arises from
the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix the prices of U.S. dollar
denominated supranational, sub-sovereign (SSA) bonds in the SSA
bond secondary market.

The Defendants operate a banking and financial services
corporation in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      Walter W. Noss, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              wnoss@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT  06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
              alawrence@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
      J. Alex Vargas, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Helmsley Building
      230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
      New York, NY  10169
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              pbarile@scott-scott.com
              avargas@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
      KELLOGG HUBER HANSEN TODD EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
      1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, DC  20036
      Telephone: (202) 326-7900
      Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
      E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com

         - and -

      J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
      223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN  37203
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
      E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 349-8500
      E-mail: TUndlin@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      KELLIE LERNER ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY  10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
              KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      George Zelcs, Esq.
      Robert E. Litan, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 641-9750
      Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
      E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
              rlitan@koreintillery.com


BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Rogers-Wilkinson" Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Rogers-Wilkinson and Tiffany Rogers, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Banner Health, Case No.
2:16-cv-03468-DMF (D. Ariz., October 12, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of Banner Health's failure to protect
confidential data.

The complaint says the personal, medical, and financial
information of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class has been
compromised, including names, birth dates, medical identification
numbers, patient information, health plan member and beneficiary
information, Social Security numbers, street addresses, e-mail
addresses, and dates of service.

Banner Health is one of the largest nonprofit health care systems
in the United States, the 15th largest hospital system in the
country, and the largest private employer in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark D. Samson, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
      E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S. Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55113
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Illinois Court Dismisses Skimming Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Navetta and Andrew Hoffman, writing for Data Protection
Report, reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois dismissed a putative class action against
Barnes & Noble based on an incident in 2012 in which criminals
tampered with payment card PIN pad terminals to steal customer
payment card information from retail stores in nine states. The
court's decision highlights an important difference between the
legal concepts of an "injury-in-fact" (which is necessary to
support a finding of Article III standing so as to be able to
maintain a case in federal court) and "damages" (which must be
alleged to maintain many causes of action, such as for breach of
contract). Although a plaintiff may have sufficiently alleged an
"injury-in-fact" to enable a federal court to consider the case,
those same allegations may be insufficient to allow the plaintiff
to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Factual Background

In the case In re Barnes & Noble PIN Pad Litigation, three
plaintiffs allegedly made purchases at Barnes & Noble stores
during a time that criminals had tampered with the retailer's
credit card readers to steal payment card information. One
plaintiff claimed to have had a fraudulent charge on her credit
card; and "at the time of the fraudulent charge," the plaintiff
was unaware of any other recent data breaches that would have
affected her credit card.  The plaintiffs alleged that Barnes &
Noble did not announce the security breach until six weeks after
discovering it.  The plaintiffs then filed a putative class action
against Barnes & Noble.  After the trial court dismissed an
earlier version of the complaint in 2013, the plaintiffs amended
their complaint, and Barnes & Noble again moved to dismiss,
claiming that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a
cause of action.

Standing Premised Upon Taking Precautions to Protect Against a
Risk of Substantial Harm

In assessing the plaintiffs' amended complaint, the trial court
found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an injury for
purposes of standing.  In analyzing the plaintiffs' Article III
standing, the court relied on Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, a
data breach case from the Seventh Circuit where the court found
standing based on allegations that hackers deliberately targeted a
retailer and stole credit card numbers, several thousand of which
were used fraudulently.  In Remijas, the court concluded that
because the hackers deliberately targeted the retailer to obtain
credit card information, it was "plausible to infer that the
plaintiffs have shown a substantial risk of harm."  In addition,
the Remijas plaintiffs had established injury-in-fact through
allegations that they lost time and money protecting themselves
against future identity theft.  Interpreting the Remijas decision,
the trial court in the Barnes & Noble case explained that the
Seventh Circuit's finding of injury-in-fact was based on the
plaintiffs taking precautions to protect themselves against a
"substantial risk" of injury created by the data breach, and not
because the plaintiffs had actually suffered fraudulent charges.
(In Remijas over 9,000 affected individuals allegedly had fraud on
their payment cards as a result of the breach.)

Applying Remijas, the trial court found that the plaintiffs had
standing because they alleged that they had incurred injuries in
the course of protecting themselves from a "substantial risk" of
fraudulent charges.  Particularly, the trial court cited the
following allegations as supporting standing:

Unauthorized individuals tampered with the retailer's PIN pad
devices for the purpose of stealing customers' personal
information.

Plaintiffs made purchases at several affected stores during the
time period when the PIN pads were compromised.

Skimmers made unauthorized purchases using the stolen information.
Plaintiffs have devoted time and money to preventing improper use
of their PII.

The trial court rejected the argument that Remijas did not apply.
Although the plaintiffs in Remijas alleged that they had been the
victim of identity theft, the trial court concluded that such an
allegation was not needed to find standing.  Rather, standing was
based on the plaintiffs taking precautions to protect themselves
against a "substantial risk" of injury created by a data breach --
even in the absence of actual identity theft.

The Plaintiffs Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be
Granted

Although the trial court found Article III standing -- such that
the plaintiffs' claims could be considered in federal court -- it
ultimately dismissed the lawsuit. In dismissing the suit, the
court cited the Seventh Circuit's decision in Pisciotta v. Old
National Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2007), which also found
standing but concluded that dismissal was proper for failure to
allege recoverable economic damages.

The trial court dismissed the claims for breach of contract, and
alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA),
California Unfair Competition Law, and California Security Breach
Notification Act, partly because the plaintiffs failed to allege
that they faced any economic or out-of-pocket damages that were
caused by the security breach.  For example, the court considered
the following theories of damages to be insufficient:

Overpayment for purchases - on the theory that the retailer builds
in the cost of safeguarding personal information into the purchase
price of all products and services, and that the plaintiffs were
denied the protections for which they had paid.

Loss of value of personal information.

Costs of identity protection monitoring services that were
contracted before the data breach and which were renewed "in part"
due to the security breach.  The trial court explained that these
damages were not plausibly alleged to be attributable to the
breach.

Time spent to dispute an unauthorized charge and have a new card
issued -- without allegations of "actual injury or monetary loss
due to the fraudulent charge."

Plaintiffs' anxiety.

The court also held that the ICFA claim failed because the
plaintiffs had not alleged that they were deceived, and the claim
for invasion of privacy (based on disclosure of private data)
failed because the plaintiffs did not allege any public disclosure
of private facts -- allegations that are required under Illinois
law.  With respect to the California Security Breach Notification
Act claims, the court added that the plaintiffs had not claimed
that their alleged injuries were caused by any delay in
notification of the security breach.

The trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit was not with prejudice,
so it is possible that the plaintiffs may seek to amend their
complaint to cure the deficiencies that the trial court
identified.


BMW: Settles Class Action Over Defective Water Pump
---------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that if you own a BMW Mini
Cooper and replaced a water pump, you could get money back.

The automaker settled a lawsuit over allegations that a defective
water pump caused engines to overheat and stall.

Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com says you could get back $500
for repairs made, or the part could be replaced at no charge
during a certain warranty period.

The deadline to file was Oct. 21.

The business claims no wrongdoing.


BRASILAGRO: Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Underway
------------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in
its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 19, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2016, that motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and class
counsel remain pending.

The Company said, "On April 29, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action was filed against Cresud and its officers and directors
and, on May 9, 2016, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against IRSA- Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima,
Cresud and their officers and directors (some of which are also
our directors), in both cases in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaints assert
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of persons
that purchased ADRs issued by IRSA and/or Cresud (as the case may
be) during a certain period of time and allege that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions
relating to the investment of those companies in IDB Development
Corp Ltd. (or IDBD)."

These class actions were transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 14, 2016, and
were referred to Judge Vernon S. Broderick on July 19, 2016.

In each action, a putative class representative has filed a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to appoint class counsel.
Both such motions remain pending before the Court.


BRASILAGRO: Appeal in Case v. IDBD Pending in Israel
----------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in
its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 19, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2016, that an appeal is pending before the Israeli Supreme Court
related to a class action against IDB Development Corp Ltd.

In June 2015, an application for a Israeli court to approve the
commencement of a class action against IDB Development Corp Ltd.
(or IDBD), IDBD's directors (some of which are also the Company's
directors), Dolphin Netherlands B.V. and C.A.A Extra Holdings Ltd.
was filed by individuals who argue that IDBD's controlling
shareholders and board of directors acted in concert to frustrate
the sale of shares of Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings Ltd (or
Clal) to JT Capital Fund. The applicants argue that this caused
them material damages as, under the terms of the debt
restructuring of IDBD's holding company, IDB Holdings Corporation
Ltd., with its creditors, they would have been entitled to receive
a larger payment had the sale been consummated. Furthermore, they
allege that the 2014 and 2015 rights offerings of IDBD
discriminated against the minority shareholders.

On March 21, 2016, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss this
class action application. On June 2, 2016, the Court partially
accepted this motion, and ordered the applicants to file an
amended class action application that would include only the
arguments and remedies with respect to the said Clal transaction.

On August 2, 2016, the respondents filed a motion to appeal
(regarding the decision not to dismiss the arguments concerning
the Clal transaction) and, on August 14, 2016, the applicants
filed an appeal (regarding the decision to dismiss the arguments
concerning the rights offering) both before the Israeli Supreme
Court.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Nov. 10 Hearing on Bid to Amend Quebec Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
motion for leave to amend complaint filed by plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit in Quebec will be heard by the court on November
10, 2016.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal
Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine
& Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the "MMA Group")
derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The accident
occurred on a section of railway owned by the MMA Group. The
previous day CP had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and
after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the
train.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Quebec Superior Court
on behalf of persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing
property in, operating a business in or physically present in Lac-
Megantic at the time of the derailment (the "Class Action"). That
lawsuit seeks derailment damages, including for wrongful death,
personal injury, and property harm.

On August 16, 2013, CP was added as a defendant. On May 8, 2015,
the Quebec Superior Court authorized (certified) the Class Action
against CP, the shipper -- Western Petroleum, and the shipper's
parent -- World Fuel Services (collectively, the "World Fuel
Entities"). The World Fuel Entities have since settled.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint,
which motion will be heard by the court on November 10, 2016.
Otherwise, the court has set no timetable to govern the conduct of
this lawsuit.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Maine Court Dismissed Wrongful Death Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
court in Maine has dismissed all wrongful death and personal
injury actions on several grounds on CP's motion.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal
Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine
& Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the "MMA Group")
derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The accident
occurred on a section of railway owned by the MMA Group. The
previous day CP had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and
after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the
train.

Lac-Megantic residents and wrongful death representatives
commenced a class action and a mass action in Texas and wrongful
death and personal injury actions in Illinois and Maine. CP
removed all of these lawsuits to federal court, and a federal
court thereafter consolidated those cases in Maine. These actions
generally charge CP with misclassification and mis-packaging (that
is, using inappropriate DOT-111 tank cars) negligence. On CP's
motion, made on September 28, 2016, the Maine court dismissed all
wrongful death and personal injury actions on several grounds. If
the ruling is upheld on any appeal that might be brought, these
cases will be litigated, if anywhere, in Canada.


CAPITAL ONE: "Jeffrey" Suit Transferred from S.D. to N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Jeffrey on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00218, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03781-TWT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Capital One offers credit cards, checking and savings accounts,
and auto loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Burke Law Offices, LLC, Suite 9020
          155 N. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          E-mail: ABurke@Burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601 1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew G. Phillips, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Burbine, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP-GA
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Promenade, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3534
          Telephone: (404) 443 5724
          Facsimile: (404) 443 5773
          E-mail: aphillips@autoplusap.com
                  jburbine@mcguirewoods.com


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Hibbard, writing for Forward Forensics, reports that a
federal judge in New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a
securities class action that alleges CommVault Systems, Inc., used
cookie-jar accounting to smooth its earnings in 2013 and 2014.
Declarations from two expert witnesses-one of them former
Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey L. Pitt-helped
persuade the court.

Judge Peter G. Sheridan last year granted a previous motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint in the case. (Regular readers
may remember Judge Sheridan's opinion on financial experts'
credibility.)  In an opinion last December, the judge said the
plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged the cookie-jar theory and
needed "technical support" to shore up their claims.  Counsel for
lead plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System heeded the
criticism, attaching expert declarations from Pitt and Harris L.
Devor, CPA to a 121-page second amended complaint filed in
February.

The defense motioned not only to dismiss the second amended
complaint but also to strike the experts' declarations.  They
argued that at the pleading stage, a plaintiff should be required
to state a cause of action without help from specialists.  Judge
Sheridan was unmoved, however, especially since he had told the
plaintiffs to seek help.  He also cited In re: Enzymotec
Securities Litigation, a recent securities fraud case in which the
court allowed an expert declaration to support an amended
complaint.

Dell Dumps CommVault

The allegations against CommVault stem from the termination of an
agreement with Dell, Inc., which resold CommVault's software for
eight years.  From 2006 through 2012, Dell accounted for about 20%
of CommVault's revenue, which ballooned from $109 million to $407
million.  On an earnings call in January 2013, CommVault's
chairman and CEO N. Robert Hammer said he expected annual revenue
to reach $1 billion "over the next few years." Analysts estimated
that goal would have required 20% annual growth through 2017.

CommVault develops software that big companies use to back up
their data, making it an excellent complement to Dell's server
computers-so excellent, in fact, that Dell decided to get into the
back-up-software business.  In 2013, the company bought
CommVault's competitor Quest Software and ended its agreement with
CommVault.  That left Mr. Hammer and company in a tight spot.
Investors had responded to CommVault's growth story, bidding the
company's stock to a high of $88 in October 2013-more than four
times its IPO price.

CommVault typically sells software licenses as part of a multiple-
element arrangement that includes services and support.  U.S.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) require the seller
in such an arrangement to divide the total selling price into
amounts that correspond to the various elements being sold.  The
seller often must recognize the different amounts at different
times, depending on how the elements are priced and delivered.
Much of the revenue is usually deferred on the balance sheet for
one or more periods before it is recognized at the top of the
income statement.

The plaintiffs allege in the second amended complaint that during
2013, CommVault improperly deferred revenue it should have
recognized.  As sales from Dell dried up, CommVault's managers
knew the company would increasingly struggle to meet earnings
expectations.  Therefore, they allegedly recorded current revenue
in a deferred revenue "cookie jar" account from which they could
draw in future quarters.  The scheme allegedly persisted until
CommVault depleted the cookie jar in the quarter ended March 31,
2014 and was forced to report disappointing earnings, resulting in
a 30% drop in its stock price.

Technical Support

Billing at $1,000 per hour, former SEC chairman Pitt provided a
professorial perspective on the matter in his declaration.
"'Cookie jars' of reserves or other liabilities are frequently the
mechanism used by public companies to improperly manipulate their
reported earnings results and achieve 'earnings smoothing,'" Pitt
said.  "They have been utilized in a number of different ways, but
the outcome is invariably the same (and is the product of
deliberate conduct) -- a fictitious or materially misleading
picture of a company's actual results of operation is created, and
investors and shareholders are deceived."

Conspicuously absent from the former chairman's declaration was an
opinion on the facts specific to CommVault.  On that subject, the
plaintiff's other expert, Devor, offered some interesting
observations.  Devor noted in his declaration that in the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, CommVault's deferred revenue suddenly
tripled from $3.1 million to $9.2 million-the largest increase the
company had ever reported.  Yet in the following three quarters,
the balance declined by $8.7 million as the company recognized
previously deferred revenue at a faster-than-normal rate.

"Plaintiff's allegations as to the apparent impropriety of the
accounting . . . is made further plausible by the fact that the
recording of such large balances of deferred revenue, and the
later reduction of such balances to the benefit of reported
revenue, was not CommVault's historical practice and was, thus,
unprecedented (and unexplained)," Devor said.  Judge Sheridan
cited Devor's analysis of CommVault's deferred revenue balance in
his opinion.

Confidential Witnesses

The second amended complaint included statements from confidential
witnesses identified as former CommVault employees.  The complaint
disclosed the witnesses' tenures, positions, and job descriptions
to demonstrate they had firsthand knowledge.

A witness identified as "Director of Strategic Partner Development
at CommVault from October 2011 through September 2014" described a
meeting led by senior CommVault executives in July 2013.  "We
knew, based on the pipeline and losing Dell business, we're way
off our numbers for the fiscal year," the witness said.  Later,
the witness added, "CommVault was skimming revenue off deferred
revenue just to make the numbers look good."

The defense argued in its motion to dismiss that the confidential
witnesses were not senior enough to have been privy to such
information.  But Judge Sheridan said in his opinion that the
witnesses likely had firsthand knowledge of "the impact occurring
on the ground, and whether CommVault would meet its growth
targets."

As for the accounting allegations, Judge Sheridan found that the
second amended complaint overcame the shortfalls of the previous
complaint.  "Not only does Plaintiff supplement the factual
allegations with the expert declarations, but the Complaint also
adequately explained the requirements under GAAP and why 'cookie
jar' accounting is improper," the judge said in his opinion.


COVANCE INC: "Bloomquist" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel L. Bloomquist, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Covance, Inc.; I-Shan Chiang, an individual; Amy
Stastny, an individual; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 37-02016-00026455-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02559-
BAS-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Cynthia Bashant.

Covance with headquarters in Princeton, New Jersey, is a contract
research organization providing drug development and animal
testing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6156 Innovation Way
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 929 9303
          Facsimile: (760) 929 9260
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

Covance, Inc. is represented by:

          Kathryn A. Visosky, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712 6120
          Facsimile: (310) 712 6199
          E-mail: kvisosky@kelleydrye.com


CST BRANDS: "Zellner" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Couche-Tard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ZELLNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CST BRANDS, INC., KIM LUBEL,
ALAN SCHOENBAUM, DONNA M. BOLES, ROGER G. BURTON, ROCKY B. DEWBRE,
THOMAS W. DICKSON, RUBEN M. ESCOBEDO, DENISE INCANDELA, JOSEPH E.
REECE, STEPHEN SMITH, JOSEPH V. TOPPER, JR., and MICHAEL WARGOTZ,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01012 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 12, 2016),
was filed over a proposed transaction designed to unlawfully
divest CST's public shareholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company shareholders.

The Plaintiffs seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
proposed transaction unless and until such problems are remedied
and the material information presently being withheld from CST
shareholders is disseminated to CST shareholders prior to the
shareholder vote on the proposed transaction.

On August 22, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
Merger Agreement) to sell CST to Couche-Tard. Under the terms of
the Merger Agreement, Couche-Tard will acquire all outstanding
shares of CST for $48.53 in cash per CST common share (merger
consideration). Couche-Tard will also, through its acquisition of
CST, acquire CST's interest in CrossAmerica Partners LP, a leading
wholesale fuels distributor and owner and lessor of real estate
used in the retail distribution of motor fuels, and associated
Incentive Distribution Rights (IDRs).

CST Brands is an American publicly-traded fuel and convenience
retailer. It is the second-largest of its kind in North America,
with 1,900 outlets in the U.S. and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          James L. Johnson
          THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM
          6500 Greenville Avenue, Suite 345
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 363 1629
          Facsimile: (214) 363 9173
          E-mail: james@jamesljohnsondallasattorney.com


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Schools Face Class Action Over Camera Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Friedman, writing for NBC 5, reports that a bad month for
Dallas County schools is getting worse.

A week after NBC 5 Investigates revealed hundreds of school bus
drivers ran red lights with no punishments, the company operating
the buses now faces a new lawsuit.

It's a class action suit filed by some Dallas County residents who
received tickets from stop arm cameras mounted on school buses.
Dallas County schools has spent millions installing those cameras
in the name of safety.

But some frustrated people who got tickets in the mail now argue
the camera program is illegal -- and they're suing to stop it.
That is why Dallas County schools said it installed cameras on
buses to crack down on drivers who put kids in danger, flying past
school bus stop signs.

"That is a tangible improvement in the safety of our children,"
said Larry Duncan with Dallas County schools.

But a new class action lawsuit filed in Dallas County argues the
school bus camera ticket program is based on a Dallas city
ordinance that's "unconstitutional, void, and unenforceable."
"They took my money, but they couldn't prove I did anything wrong.
They need to stop," said plaintiff Joseph Lafreniere.

Mr. Lafreniere is one of the people suing.

He received a stop arm ticket, but said he's not sure he was
driving the car.

"You know, at the time, there were a few people living in my house
and they all have driver's licenses," Mr. Lafreniere said.

But the ticket is still issued to the person who owns the car.
Mr. Lafreniere and his lawyer said that leaves some car owners
unfairly punished for something they didn't do.

"The fine is on you -- and the money's in the pocket of Dallas
County schools," Attorney LeDouglas Johnson.

Attorney LeDouglas Johnson also argued school bus camera tickets
were never specifically authorized by the state legislature.
Instead Dallas County schools has worked with local cities to
write their own camera ordinances -- which Johnson said rob people
of their right to a jury trial and their right to appeal beyond a
local municipal court.

"The constitution is clear about the rights we have as Texas
citizens it's clear that we have a right to a trial by jury --
it's clear that a person is not to be held responsible for
something they didn't do," Mr. Johnson said.

But Dallas County schools fired back on Oct. 12, accusing the
people who filed the suit of looking for an easy way out.

"Four of the five appealed all the way to municipal court and were
denied," Mr. Duncan said.  "Now they're looking for a legal
loophole over $300."

DCS provided legal opinions on Oct. 12 from five different city
attorneys, all saying the camera program is legal.

And DCS said it will fight to keep snapping pictures of cars that
break the law.

"It's more than legal it's about student safety," Mr. Duncan said.
Both sides are confident they will prevail in court.

An attorney in Richardson recently used a somewhat similar
strategy to successfully fight a red light camera ticket, but that
ruling is expected to be appealed.

If Dallas County loses these cases it would be a big blow to the
district.

They have invested millions of dollars in the camera program.
They now run camera programs for other cities across the state --
and they need the money from the tickets to cover the costs.


DGS CONSTRUCTION: "Amaya" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Mario Ernesto Amaya, Jose Norland Gonzalez, Jose Amadeo Castillo
v. DGS Construction, LLC, d/b/a Schuster Concrete Construction,
and The Whityng Turner Contracting Company, Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-03350, (Md. Cir., October 5, 2016), seeks actual damages,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief
under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage Payment and
Collections Law.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Schuster who worked
among at least 300 other carpenters during the ongoing
construction of the MGM Resort Casino at National Harbor for a
period of several months during 2016 and 2016. Plaintiffs bring
this class action against Defendants Schuster and Whiting Turner
for the benefit and protection of two classes: (1) all current and
former individuals employed by Defendant Schuster at the MGM
Resort Casino at National Harbor in any of the classifications of
a craft worker who worked any overtime hours; and (2) all current
and former individuals employed by Defendant Schuster who
performed carpentry work at the MGM Resort Casino at National
Harbor for Defendant Schuster. Plaintiffs bring this class action
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated persons
to obtain damages, restitution, as well ae other relief for the
proposed classes.

Whiting Turner Contacting Company is a Maryland corporation with
its principal place of business located at 900 E. Joppa Road,
Baltimore, Maryland 21286. Whiting Turner is the Project
Contractor on the MGM National Harbor construction project. DGS is
a Maryland limited liability company with its principal place of
business located at 3717 Crandall Lane Owings Mills, Maryland
21117. Schuster is a contractor for Whiting-Turner. Amaya,
Gonzalez and Castillo worked as carpenters for the said project.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
      Joseph M. Creed, Esq.
      JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. - GREENBELT OFFICE
      6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
      Greenbelt, MD 20770-1417
      Phone: (301) 220-2200
      Fax: (301) 220-1214
      Email: jcreed@jgllaw.com
             bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com


DIRTBUSTERS FLEET: "Mooney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Mooney, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Dirtbusters Fleet Service, Inc. and Nina M. Jones,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03780-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 12, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Dirtbusters Fleet Service, Inc. is a full service provider in the
vehicle maintenance industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adian R. Miller, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street NE, P.O. Box 57007
      Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
      Telephone: (404) 496-7332
      Facsimile: (404) 496-7428
      Email: ARMiller@forthepeople.com


EPCOT REALTY: "Yi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
YI HUA ZHOU, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EPCOT REALTY, LLC, ABC CORP.
d/b/a PROSPECT MANAGEMENT, KUO CHIANG CHANG, MICHAEL CHANG,
JENNIFER CHANG or "DOE" (last name unknown), and MAYOR "DOE" (last
name unknown), the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05704 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 12, 2016), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement for expenses
relating to tools of the trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the
nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of hours pay, and
failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring
would financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees and violate state and federal laws.

From 1997 to August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants
to work as a superintendent for Defendants' 75-unit apartment
building located at 134-05 Cherry Avenue, Queens, NY 11355. The
Plaintiff was responsible for work including but not limited to,
doing repair work, buying supplies, overseeing the parking lot,
handling the trash, collecting rent, cleaning, and maintaining the
general orderly appearance of Defendants' property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ESSEX PROPERTY: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Jung, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Essex Property Trust, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-07609 (C.D. Cal., October
12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide the Plaintiff and Class Members with proper meal periods
by not providing any meal period at all or authorizing and
permitting meal periods that were less than 30 minutes, late, or
interrupted.

Essex Property Trust, Inc. operates an apartment building located
at 1100 Park Pl #200, San Mateo, CA 94403.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
      Christopher Hughes, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
              mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
              chughes@maternlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
      Jean-Paul Leclerq, Esq.
      Randi L. Ibrahim, Esq.
      MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 312-0299
      Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
      E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
              leclerq@law-rm.com
              ibrahim@law-rm.com


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Faces "Nahas" Suit in Del. Over sale to TIAA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Nahas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Everbank Financial Corp., Robert M. Clements, W. Blake
Wilson, Scott M. Stuart, Joseph D. Hinkel, Merrick R. Kleeman, W.
Radford Lovett, II, Arrington H. Mixon, Robert J. Mylod, Jr.,
Russell B. Newton, III, William Sanford, and Richard P. Schifter,
Case No. 12824 (Del. Ch. Ct., October 12, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all public minority stockholders of EverBank Financial
Corp who have been harmed as a result of breaches of fiduciary
duty by the EverBank Board of Directors in approving the sale of
the Company to Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America ("TIAA"), for $19.50 per share in cash or $2.5 billion.

Everbank Financial Corp. is a unitary savings and loan holding
company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a
retirement provider for people who work in the academic, research,
medical and cultural fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
      O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 778-4000
      E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
              dmurray@oelegal.com
         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com
              etripodi@zlk.com


EXPERT-MED: Oct. 25 Deadline Set to File Junk Fax Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that if you received a fax
from Expert-Med, it could be your lucky day.

The fax showed costs for medical equipment.

The company settled allegations that it sent the faxes without
prior permission and with no opt-out option.

You could get up to $500 back -- but the fax may be hard to find.

They went out between April 30, 2009 and April 30, 2013.

This deadline to file a claim is Oct. 25.

The business claims no wrongdoing.


FEDERAL-MOGUL: Faces "Raul" Suit Over Prop. Share Sale to Icahn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Malka Raul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Daniel A. Ninivaggi, Rainer Jueckstock, Sung Hwan Cho,
Thomas W. Elward, George Feldenkreis, James Michael Laisure,
Courtney Mather, Michael Nevin, Louis J. Pastor, Neil S. Subin,
Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation, Icahn Enterprises L.P., Carl
C. Icahn, Jack G. Wasserman, James L. Nelson, William A.
Leidesdorf, Keith Cozza, IEH FM Holdings, LLC, American
Entertainment Properties Corp., Icahn Building LLC, Icahn
Enterprises Holdings L.P., Icahn Enterprises G.P., Inc., Case No.
12821 (Del. Ch. Ct., October 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of
all public stockholders of Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc., to enjoin
the proposed acquisition of the outstanding minority shares of
Federal Mogul common stock by Icahn Enterprises, through a flawed
process and the price are not entirely fair to the Company's
minority stockholders.

Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation supplies various components,
accessories, and systems to the manufacturers and servicers of
vehicles and equipment worldwide.

Icahn Building LLC, Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P., and Icahn
Enterprises G.P., Inc. investment in various industries including
auto parts, energy, metals, rail cars, casinos, food packaging,
real estate and home fashion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE  19801
      Telephone: (302) 984-3800
      E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

         - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Edward W. Miller, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER
      821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com
              edmilleresq@aol.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Female Managers Have Lower Pay, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News service reported that FCA US dba Fiat Chrysler
pays its female area managers far less than their male
counterparts, a class action claims in Fort Lauderdale Broward
County Court.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Jeep Owners Let Down by ACCC's "Redress" Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rolfe, writing for News Corp Australia Network, reports that
Jeep owners say they have been let down -- again -- this time by
the ACCC's "redress" program meant to deal with their car woes.

A year after the scheme was set up, only 60 or 70 owners have
received compensation cheques, typically for less than $1000.  The
largest cheque sent out has been for about $5,000, with Jeep's
parent Fiat Chrysler Australia (FCA) offering to buy back vehicles
on a few occasions.  This is the first time any results have been
made public.

Owners believe the redress program is drastically undercooking
their losses, leading some to pursue the carmaker legally instead.

"I got a cheque for $1300 and set fire to it," said Ashton Wood,
who set up the Destroy My Jeep Facebook page after bashing and
burning his dud Cherokee, for which he paid $49,000.

The redress program was announced by the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission in September last year as part of its new
model of dispute resolution.

It followed the success former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett had
on the ACCC's behalf in brokering improved outcomes for suppliers
who had been rorted by Coles.

But Mr. Wood said FCA's mediator had made errors calculating
compensation.  He said his payment was based on being without his
car for 7.5 days when the correct figure was 68. Other owners had
reported the same problem to him, he said.

FCA would not comment on Mr. Wood's allegations or any other
aspect of the redress program.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims said: "If we heard of a lot of examples of
people being dealt with factually wrongly we would certainly be
knocking on the door" of FCA.  "We haven't had that evidence."
Ms Sims did reveal the ACCC is formally investigating to car
makers over allegations they had denied customers their "consumer
guarantee" rights.  He wouldn't name the makers.

Mr. Wood said he had referred about 20 owners to a law firm which
had recently begun taking on dealers who sold defective Jeeps.

"I can confirm we act for multiple parties," Brisbane-based Certus
Legal co-founder Darryl Richards said.  He wouldn't make further
comment.

Mr. Wood said under Queensland law it had not been possible to run
a class action.

Ford Australia has been facing such action from as many as 70,000
owners.  Initially, the firm representing class members, Bannister
Law, was chasing refunds or the difference between the purchase
price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated
damages.

That changed with the firm deciding to no longer pursue refunds.

"We understand that it may be disappointing for some of you, but
we believe that this is the best opportunity for affected owners
to be compensated in a timely and inexpensive manner," the firm
said on Oct. 11 in a post to is Ford Class Action Facebook page.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Misclassification Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend lawsuits include, among others, cases
alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its
subsidiaries and/or one of its agents misclassified certain
employees, including:

     -- Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange,

     -- Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

     -- Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015
and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has
not been certified.

The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Suits Over Illegal Fees Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend lawsuits include, among others, cases
alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its
subsidiaries and/or one of its agents overcharged or improperly
charged fees for products and services, conspired to fix prices,
participated in the conveyance of illusory property interests,
denied home warranty claims, and gave items of value to builders,
brokers and others as inducements to refer business in violation
of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws
generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
obligations, including:

     -- Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court of New Jersey,

     -- Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on July 26, 2016 and pending in the Northern District of
Georgia,

     -- Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     -- Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     -- Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States District
court for the Middle District of Florida,

     -- McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et
al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange,

     -- Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     -- Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, and

     -- In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and the judgment
has been affirmed on appeal.  The Company has not yet been able to
assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an
estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to the
condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole.


FIRST NBC: Parties Await Decision on Lead Plaintiff Bids
--------------------------------------------------------
First NBC Bank Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in
a class action lawsuit currently await a decision on the motions
of a group of institutional investors and a pension fund 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.


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in N.Y. Over Desonide-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo New York, Inc.,
Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-07987 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 12, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and fix
the prices of the primary formulations of generic Desonide.

Desonide is a topical corticosteroid that health care providers
use to treat a variety of skin conditions, such as eczema and
dermatitis.

The Defendants operate pharmaceutical companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
              emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com

         - and -

      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      711 Third Ave, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)798-0136
      Facsimile: (212)557-2952
      E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
              je@girardgibbs.com
              aep@girardgibbs.com


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Clobetasol-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest
Health Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.,
Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Wockhardt
USA LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07979 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2016),
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and fix the prices
of Clobetasol Propionate topical ointment .05%;  topical solution
.05%; topical gel .05%; and topical cream .05%.

Clobetasol Propionate is a topical corticosteroid used for the
treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including eczema,
dermatitis, psoriasis, and vitiligo.

The Defendants operate pharmaceutical companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
              emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com

         - and -

      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      Justin N. Boley, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
              jnb@wexlerwallace.com

GARDEN OF LIGHT: "Moreno" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Moreno, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Garden of Light, Inc., doing business as Bakery on Main, a
Connecticut corporation, and Does 1-25, Inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. CIVDS1613760, was removed from the San Bernardino
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02160 to the
proceeding.

Garden of Light was founded in 1994. The company's line of
business includes manufacturing cereal breakfast foods and related
preparations.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GREATER NEW YORK: Faces "Xiao" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greater New York
Social and Health Adult Day Care Center, LLC. The case is entitled
Xiao Qing Lan, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Greater New York Social and
Health Adult Day Care Center, LLC; Lisa Ye; Paul Wu; and JOHN or
JANE DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05729 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 13, 2016).

Greater New York provides adult care for the elderly in Queens
area.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GS DALLAS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Hyman" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Hyman, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated
v. GS Dallas Limited Partnership, Sanjeev Khanna, & David Peugh,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00778 (E.D. Tex., October 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

GS Dallas Limited Partnership is a Texas limited partnership which
owns and operates a number of Subway and Massage Envy stores in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com
              cchandler@dobllp.com


HELIX ENERGY: Briefing Completed on Bid to Dismiss "Izadjoo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties have completed briefing on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder,
Parviz Izadjoo, filed a class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo
v. Owen Kratz and Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the
Company and Mr. Kratz, our President and Chief Executive Officer,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of shares of
our common stock between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit asserts violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both us and Mr.
Kratz, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz,
based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings
and other public disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry
docks of two of our vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that
allegedly caused the price at which putative class members bought
stock during the proposed class period to be artificially
inflated."

"On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14,
2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint,
adding Mr. Tripodo (our Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer) and Mr. Chamblee (our former Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer) as individual defendants,
alleging the same types of claims made in the original complaint
(alleged violations during the Class Period of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to all
defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants), but asserting that the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures are related to the condition of and repairs to certain
equipment aboard the Q4000 vessel.

"The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 28, 2016 and
the parties have completed briefing on that motion. We believe
this lawsuit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against it."


INFOBLOX INC: Faces "Lam" Suit in Del. Over Flawed Sale Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thuan Lam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jesper Andersen, Richard E. Belluzzo, Laura C.
Conigliaro, Philip Fasano, Fred M. Gerson, Daniel J. Phelps, and
Edzard Overbeek, and Infoblox, Inc., Case No. 12823 (Del. Ch.,
Ct., October 12, 2016), arises out of a flawed sale process
wherein pursuant to a proposed Definitive Agreement, Infoblox
stockholders will receive $26.50 per share of common stock in cash
per Infoblox share, which substantially undervalues Infoblox's
stock.

Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Infoblox manufactures a
device that allows users to create and manage dynamic computer
networks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
              mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              stornatore@zlk.com


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dec. 5 Class Action Opt-Put Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

If You Directly Purchased Containerboard Products Between February
15, 2004 and November 8, 2010

You May Be a Member of a Certified Class.

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

Please read this Notice carefully. THIS IS NOT A SETTLEMENT. Your
legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Your
rights and the deadlines for exercising your rights are explained
in this Notice.

Kleen Products LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. International Paper Company, et al.,
is a class action lawsuit involving the price of Containerboard
Products purchased directly from the Defendants that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The lawsuit alleges that Defendants (identified
immediately below) engaged in illegal anticompetitive conduct with
respect to the sale of Containerboard Products and that, as a
result, any person or entity that purchased Containerboard
Products directly from any Defendant during the Class Period paid
a higher price than otherwise would have been the case in a
competitive market.  Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations, and
there has been no ruling on the merits of the claims or defenses.

The Defendants are International Paper Company, Weyerhaeuser
Company, Georgia Pacific LLC, Temple-Inland Inc., TIN Inc. and
WestRock CP, LLC, which was formerly known as Smurfit-Stone
Container Corporation, and includes their predecessor companies
(including Containerboard Products manufacturers merged with or
acquired by them), successors-in-interest, and each of their
subsidiaries or affiliates that sold Containerboard Products in
the United States during the Class Period.  These Defendants are
collectively referred to as the "Non-Settling Defendants."

Packaging Corporation of America, Cascades Canada, Inc. and
Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc. were also named as Defendants but
settled with Plaintiffs.  These Defendants are collectively
referred to as the

"Settling Defendants." Notices of the settlements with the
Settling Defendants were sent to Settlement Class Members, and the
time to opt out of those Settlement Classes has expired. More
information about these settlements can be found at
www.containerboardproductscase.com

"Containerboard Products" include linerboard, corrugated medium,
corrugated sheets and corrugated products, including boxes and
other containers.

A "direct purchaser" is a person or business that bought
Containerboard Products directly from any of the Defendants,
including their predecessors, affiliates or subsidiaries at any
time during the Class Period, rather than from an intermediary or
a company that is not a Defendant in this lawsuit, for use or
delivery in the United States.  A direct purchaser need not have
purchased from every Defendant in order to be a Class Member.

The Class Period is February 15, 2004, until November 8, 2010.

On March 26, 2015, the District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois certified the Class for purposes of litigating the merits
of the case (the "Certified Litigation Class"). The Defendants
appealed this decision.  On August 4, 2016, the Seventh Circuit
denied the Defendants' appeal and affirmed
certification of the Class

The lawsuit is continuing against the Non-Settling Defendants.
Your rights are still affected by this Notice of Pendency even if
you purchased Containerboard Products only from the Settling
Defendants during the Class Period.  For purposes of determining
whether you are a member of the Certified Litigation Class, it
does not matter from which Defendant you purchased Containerboard
Products, so long as you purchased directly from at least one
Defendant, including both the Non-Settling Defendants and the
Settling Defendants, at any time during the Class Period for use
or delivery in the United States.

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this Notice?
You or your company may have purchased Containerboard Products
directly from one or more of the Defendants in the United States
between February 15, 2004, and November 8, 2010.  This Notice
explains the lawsuit and your legal rights.

2. What are Containerboard Products?
"Containerboard Products" include linerboard, corrugated medium,
corrugated sheets and corrugated products, including boxes and
other containers.

3. What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs in this case allege that Defendants conspired to fix
the prices of Containerboard Products in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and is known as Kleen Products LLC,
et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated
v International Paper Company, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-05711.

On November 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "Complaint") alleging that the Defendants conspired
to illegally fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of
Containerboard Products purchased in the United States in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs have filed
subsequent amendments to the Complaint.  The lawsuit claims that
any person or entity that purchased Containerboard
Products directly from any Defendant during the Class Period paid
a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a
competitive market.  The lawsuit seeks to recover three times the
actual damages that Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' conduct
caused, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.
The lawsuit alleges a Class Period between February 15, 2004, and
November 8, 2010.  The Non-Settling Defendants deny any liability.
The Settling Defendants also denied any liability and were
dismissed from the lawsuit pursuant to the settlements.

For information about the prior settlements with the Settling
Defendants and their effect on your rights, please
see Section 9, below.

4. What are direct purchases?
A "direct" purchase means that you bought one or more of the
Containerboard Products from one or more of the Defendants,
including any of the Settling Defendants or the Non-Settling
Defendants. Your direct purchase(s) must have been made during the
Class Period, and the Containerboard Products must have been
purchased for use or delivery in the United States.  If you bought
Containerboard Products from a company other than one of
the Defendants, it is not a direct purchase for purposes of this
lawsuit. You are not required to have purchased from every
Defendant in order to be considered a direct purchaser for
purposes of this lawsuit.  You may be a part of the Certified
Litigation Class as long as you purchased Containerboard Products
from any Defendant during the Class Period.

Defendants have many customers in Canada; however, this case and
this Notice of Pendency only apply to Containerboard Products that
were directly purchased for use or delivery in the United States.

5. What is the Class Period?
The Class Period is February 15, 2004, through November 8, 2010.

6. Who are the Defendants?
The Defendants include Non-Settling Defendants and Settling
Defendants.

The Non-Settling Defendants are International Paper Company;
Weyerhaeuser Company; Georgia Pacific LLC;
Temple-Inland Inc.; TIN Inc., and WestRock CP, LLC, formerly known
as Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation.

The Settling Defendants are Packaging Corporation of America,
Cascades Canada, Inc. and Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc.
Both the Non-Settling Defendants and the Settling Defendants also
include any and all of these companies' predecessors (including
Containerboard Products manufacturers merged with or acquired by
them), successors-in-interest, and each of their wholly owned or
controlled subsidiaries or affiliates that sold Containerboard
Products directly to purchasers in the United States during the
Class Period.

On September 3, 2014, the Northern District of Illinois United
States District Court granted final approval of Plaintiffs'
settlement with Defendant Packaging Corporation of America.  On
May 21, 2015, the Court finally approved a separate settlement
with Defendants Cascades Canada ULC and Norampac Holdings U.S.
Inc.  No other Defendant has settled with Plaintiffs to date.
Notices of those settlements were sent to Settlement Class
Members, and the time to opt out of those Settlement Classes has
expired. More information about the settlements
can be found at www.containerboardproductscase.com
Your rights are still affected by this Notice of Pendency
even if you purchased Containerboard Products only from the
Settling Defendants during the Class Period.

7. Why is this a class action?
In a class action, one or more people and/or companies, called
class representatives, sue on behalf of people and
companies who have similar claims.  Together, they make up a
class.  In a class action, one court resolves the
issues for all class members, except for those who exclude
themselves.  All Class Members will be bound by the
resolution of this lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants.
The Class Representatives in this case are Kleen Products LLC,
R.P.R. Enterprises, Inc., Mighty Pac, Inc., Ferraro Foods, Inc.,
Ferraro Foods of North Carolina, LLC, MTM Packaging Solutions of
Texas LLC, RHE Hatco, Inc., and Chandler Packaging, Inc.
The judge in charge of this class action is U.S. District Judge
Harry D. Leinenweber.

8. How do I know if I am part of the Certified Litigation Class?
Any person or business that fits the following description may be
a member of the Certified Litigation Class,
defined as:

All persons who purchased Containerboard Products directly from
any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use
or delivery in the United States from at least as early as
February 15, 2004 through November 8, 2010.

Specifically excluded from this Class are the Defendants;
officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant;

any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and
any affiliate, legal representative, heir or
assign of any Defendant.  Also excluded from the Class are any
federal, state or local governmental entities, any
judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his
or her immediate family and judicial staff, and
any juror assigned to this action.

The Class Period is from February 15, 2004, through November 8,
2010.

"Containerboard Products" means linerboard, corrugated medium,
corrugated sheets and corrugated products, including boxes and
other containers.  For purposes of determining whether you are
affected by this Notice of Pendency and therefore a member of the
Certified Litigation Class, it does not matter from which
Defendant you purchased Containerboard Products, so long as you
purchased directly from at least one Defendant, including both the
Non-Settling Defendants and the Settling Defendants, at any time
during the Class Period for use or delivery in the United States.

RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU ARE A
MEMBER OF THE CERTIFIED LITIGATION CLASS.

9. What is the effect of the prior Settlements?
The Defendants have denied any wrongdoing in this case, and the
Court has not decided in favor of the Plaintiffs or the
Defendants.  To date, only Packaging Corporation of America,
Cascades Canada ULC, and Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc. have agreed
to settle the litigation.  As part of those settlements, the Court
certified Settlement Classes.  Notices of those settlements have
already been sent to Settlement Class Members.
Details about the settlements are available at
www.containerboardproductscase.com

As a result of those settlements, claims against the Settling
Defendants have been dismissed and the periods to exclude
yourself, or opt out, from those settlements have expired.  Unless
you opted out of those settlements within the specified
time period, the claims against the Settling Defendants based on
these allegations have been extinguished and you are bound by
those settlements.

The Non-Settling Defendants have not agreed to settle, and the
litigation is continuing against them on behalf of
the Certified Litigation Class.  Even if you purchased
Containerboard Products exclusively form the Settling
Defendants, you still have claims against the Non-Settling
Defendants which you may pursue as part of the Certified
Litigation Class or on your own at your own expense if you exclude
yourself from the Class, as described in Section 12 below.

Additional money may become available in the future as a result of
additional settlements and/or a trial, but there is no guarantee
this will happen.  There is no plan of distribution and no claims
to file at this time regarding settlement payments made by the
Settling Defendants.

10. I'm still not sure if I'm included.
If you are still not sure whether you are a Class Member, you can
contact counsel of your choice or you can ask for assistance of
Class Co-Lead Counsel (referred to in Section 14 below) at no
expense.

IF YOU DO NOTHING
11. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, you will remain in the Certified Litigation
Class through resolution of this lawsuit.  You will
be bound by any judgment in the action.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CERTIFIED LITIGATION CLASS
If you don't want to be included in the Certified Litigation
Class, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue
the Non-Settling Defendants about the legal issues in this case,
on your own and at your own expense, then you must take steps to
remove yourself from the Class.  This is called excluding yourself
or "opting out" of, the Class.

12. How do I get excluded from the Certified Litigation Class?
To exclude yourself from the Certified Litigation Class, you must
send a letter saying that you want to be excluded from the
Certified Litigation Class.  The letter must include the following
information:

   -- A statement that you want to be excluded from the Certified
Litigation Class in Kleen Products LLC, et al., individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. International Paper
Company, et al.

   -- Your name, address, telephone number, and signature.

   -- All trade names or business names and addresses you or your
company have used, as well as the names of any subsidiaries or
affiliates of your business that also are requesting to be
excluded from the Class.

Your letter must be postmarked by December 5, 2016, and sent to:
Containerboard Products Class Action

         Attn: Exclusions
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173014
         Milwaukee, WI 53217

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not get any
potential payments from any monetary judgment that Plaintiffs may
obtain against the Non-Settling Defendants.  You may be able to
sue (or continue to sue) the Non-Settling Defendants for claims
such as those asserted in this lawsuit.

13. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue any
Non-Settling Defendant for the claims that Plaintiffs' Complaint
resolves.  If you have a pending lawsuit against any Non-Settling
Defendant involving the issues in this case, speak to your own
lawyer in that case immediately.  It may be necessary for you to
exclude yourself from the Class in order to continue your own
lawsuit.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU AS A CLASS MEMBER
14. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court has appointed Michael J. Freed of Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC and Daniel J. Mogin of The Mogin Law Firm, P.C. to
represent the Class.  These lawyers are called Class Co-Lead
Counsel.  You will not be charged for these lawyers.  If you want
to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your
own expense.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
15. How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the litigation and the Certified
Litigation Class.  You can learn more about the litigation
by writing to Containerboard Products Class Action, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173014, Milwaukee, WI 53217, by visiting
www.containerboardproductscase.com, or by calling toll-free 1-888-
764-8864.

You may also write to any of Class Counsel at the following
addresses:

         Michael J. Freed
         FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
         2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130
         Bannockburn, IL 60015
         Telephone: (224) 632-4500
         Fax: (224) 632-4521

         Daniel J. Mogin
         THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
         707 Broadway, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 687-6611
         Fax: (619) 687-6610

Do not contact the Judge or the Clerk of Court regarding this
Notice.

16. Can I update my address?
Yes. If your address changes, please send your current address to
Containerboard Products Class Action, c/o
A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173014, Milwaukee, WI 53217.
DATED: October 21, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2016, that the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification filed September 1, 2015, in a
shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending Court approval.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against a number of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November
18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of
the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on
August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their
complaint.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26,
2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December
15, 2014. The case is moving forward on the claims that remain,
and discovery is ongoing.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015,
the Company filed its opposition on October 15, 2015, and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2015.

On January 21, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion, which
remains pending. No trial date has been set.

Based on currently available information, the Company does not
believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future
results of operations.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 74 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2016, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in approximately 74 individual
product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal
courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member
underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical
System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some
cases death, as a result of such surgery. The Company has also
received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys, many of which are subject to certain
tolling agreements. The Company has also been named as a defendant
in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. In
total, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of 55 patients who had da
Vinci Surgeries in 22 different states.

The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying
degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects
in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's
part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare
professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases
further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose
and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the
da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of
causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on
purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential
settlements in many of the filed cases.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have also engaged in well-funded national
advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci
Surgery. The Company has received a significant number of such
claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it believes are a result of
these advertising efforts. A substantial number of claims relate
to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain
versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments which
included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a
market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the
subject of a recall in 2013. In an effort to avoid the expense and
distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered
into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of
limitations for these claims and engaged in confidential mediation
efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal
counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling
agreements, the Company determined during 2014 that, while it
denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of
litigation, settlement of certain claims was appropriate. During
the nine months ended September 30, 2016, and 2015, the Company
recorded pre-tax charges of $6.3 million and $13.8 million,
respectively, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number
of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements.
No charges were recorded during the three months ended September
30, 2016, and 2015, related to these claims.

The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these
claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who
have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is
possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals
and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the
mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not
participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts
in a court of law.  Consequently, the final outcome of these
claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to
predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product
liability claims may be materially different than the amount of
the current estimate and accruals and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and
future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable
possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists,
the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of
loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time.

As of September 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, a total of $24.8
million and $24.4 million, respectively, were included in other
accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Appeal in Product Liability Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2016, that the Washington
Supreme Court has not yet issued an opinion on plaintiff's appeal
in a product liability action.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action that had originally been filed in
Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the
healthcare providers and hospital involved in a decedent's surgery
on such decedent's behalf (Josette Taylor, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on
behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical,
Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5).

In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability
claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent
died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly
suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of
the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted
that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the
Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct
the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past
medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well
as punitive damages. A trial commenced on April 15, 2013.

On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that
the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the
Company's favor on June 7, 2013.

Subsequent to the verdict, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
That appeal was denied on July 7, 2015. On July 27, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of
Appeal; the Court of Appeal denied the motion for reconsideration
on August 10, 2015. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a
Petition for Review with the Washington State Supreme Court.

On February 10, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court issued an order
granting the plaintiff's Petition for Review. Oral argument on the
appeal before the Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7,
2016. The court will issue an opinion at a future time.


KEMPER SPORTS: "Stapleton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stapleton, on behalf of himself individually and all
others similarly situated v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., and
The Mosaic Company, Case No. 8:16-cv-02891-SCB-AEP (10th Cir. Ct.,
October 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kemper Sports Management, Inc. develops, builds, owns, and manages
golf courses, resorts, athletic clubs, and lodging venues in the
United States.

The Mosaic Company is a producer and marketer of concentrated
phosphate and potash.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sam J. Smith, Esq.
      Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL  33701
      Telephone: (813) 253-2010
      E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
              ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com

         - and -

      Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
      ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY  10004
      Telephone: (212) 961-7639
      Facsimile: (646) 998.8051 fax
      E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


KLA-TENCOR: Dismissal of Merger Related Actions Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in light of the
termination of the Merger Agreement, KLA-Tencor has discussed
dismissal of the Rooney, Hedgecock, and Spoleto actions with the
plaintiffs.

On October 20, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement" or
"Merger") with Lam Research Corporation ("Lam Research") which was
subject to regulatory approvals. On October 5, 2016, the parties
mutually agreed to terminate the Merger Agreement.

                   The California Class Actions

In connection with the October 21, 2015 announcement of the Merger
transaction, four purported KLA-Tencor stockholders filed putative
class actions on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders. Three
actions were filed in the California Superior Court for Santa
Clara County and are captioned, Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et
al., Case No. 115CV287329, Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 115CV287331, (both filed on October 28, 2015) and Spoleto
Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552 (filed on December
29, 2015) (collectively, the "California Class Actions").
Plaintiffs in the Hedgecock and Karr actions filed amended
complaints on December 21, 2015. The California Class Actions all
name KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-Tencor Board, Lam
Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (together with Merger Sub
1 and Lam Research, the "Lam Group") as defendants. The California
Class Actions allege that the members of the KLA-Tencor Board
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing
KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Group at
an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and by making
disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially
misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the Lam Group aided and abetted
such breaches. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's
transaction with the Lam Group, as applicable, as well as an award
of damages and attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief.

             The Delaware Chancery Court Class Action

One putative class action was filed on November 10, 2015, in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and is captioned,
Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700. On December 23, 2015,
plaintiff Rooney filed an amended complaint. The Rooney action was
filed against the members of the KLA-Tencor Board and similar to
the California Class Actions alleges that the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with
Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process,
and by making disclosures concerning the transaction that are
materially misleading. Plaintiff Rooney seeks to enjoin or rescind
KLA-Tencor's transaction with Lam Research, as applicable, as well
as an award of attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief.

                      Agreement in Principle

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

In light of the termination of the Merger Agreement, KLA-Tencor
has discussed dismissal of the Rooney, Hedgecock, and Spoleto
actions with the plaintiffs.


LOUISIANA: Hydrologist Report to Play Key Role in Walker Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fambrough, writing for The Livingston Parish News, reports
that a hydrologist's report will play a major role in the City of
Walker's lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation &
Development and private contractors, according to an attorney
representing the city.

And it probably will be influential in any class-action lawsuit
brought by Livingston Parish residents for damages from the Great
Flood of 2016.

Josh Plamintier of the Law Offices of Michael C. Palmintier and
John Neale deGravelles spoke at a town-hall meeting of about 30
people on Thursday, Oct. 6, at Walker City Hall.

Mr. Palmintier said after the meeting that he hopes to have the
hydrologist from Rice University sign a contract to do the
research.

It will take the hydrologist two to three days to gather
information then give a preliminary opinion, he said.  The
hydrology modeling of the flooding will take two to three months.

The City of Water is not paying for the hydrologist,
Mr. Palmintier said, "The attorneys are paying."

His law firm also is preparing a Freedom of Information request
that will be submitted to the state and private contractors.

Mr. Palmintier said who the city brings legal action against will
depend on what "the evidence shows."

"The science speaks for itself," he said.

"We think it will show a factor in the flooding north of
Interstate 12 was the wall.  The normal flood plain is north to
south," Mr. Palmintier said.  "You can't impede on the normal
flood plain and we believe the wall did it."

The lawyer said they would "glean from the hydrologist's report
which parties to sue."

"We don't believe the federal government is at fault," he said,
but state and private contractors might be a different story.

"We're still gathering information.  We're doing our best to get
information as quick as possible," he said.  "Without the
hydrologic model, we can't prove the wall caused flooding."

"We know this: Bad happens thing when people don't do what they
are supposed to do," he said.

"We know the wall was build 12 to 14 miles in length with no
drainage and the area north of the interstate got flooded,"
Mr. Palmintier said.

Both Mr. Palmintier and Mayor Rick Ramsey said the purpose of the
meeting was not to solicit clients for Mr. Palmintier's law firm
but to explain the options to residents.

On more than on occasion during his talk, Mr. Palmintier urged
audience members thinking of any legal action to get legal
representation.

"I do think you need representation," he said.

A signup sheet is available at Walker City Hall for individuals
interested in joining a class-action lawsuit, City Attorney Bobby
King said.

"The city will make itself available to any legal firm interested
in the class-action lawsuit," Mr. Ramsey said.

Mr. Palmintier's law firm has a contingency contract -- it will
only get paid if the city wins an award -- but, "The city can't
sue for its citizens," Mr. Ramsey said.

A class-action lawsuit does not exist yet, Mr. Palmintier said,
calling it a "prospective class action" that could involve 25,000
to 100,000 people.

There are a number of steps that first have to happen, he added,
including lawsuits being filed, a judge certifying it as a
class-action lawsuit and the naming of a plantiffs board.

"I represent the city and a couple of hundred individuals who have
come to my office and signed a contract," Mr. Palmintier said, but
a class action would involve muncipalities, businesses and
individuals.

"All are part of the class action - those affected by the flooding
caused by Interstate 12."

As for the City of Walker's lawsuit, "Filing the lawsuit could
come in the next two months," Mr. Palmintier said.  "The burden of
proof is on us but the science will prove it."

The hydrologist's modeling will show the level of the interstate
in 1983, what was then the worst flooding of the area, and how
water would go over the interstate, he said.

The next step in the modeling is showing the interstate in 2016
and how water was handled.

"We don't tell the scientist what to prove.  They tell us what
science says," Mr. Palmentier said, while his law firm is still
collecting photos and videos of the flooding

"It could go either way," he warned about the hydrologist's
conclusions.  "But I don't believe it will, but it could."

"I've got my theories and my strategy," Mr. Palmintier said.  "My
firm is interested in something being done about the wall.  That's
free of charge."

Mr. Ramsey also acknowledged there would be opposition to the
lawsuit from south of Interstate 12.

"Business interests know (the wall) prevented flooding and changed
flooding dynamics," he said.

Ramsey said the flooding has cost the City of Walker $3 million
and that does not include "loss of future revenue."

The project, which Mr. Ramey said was part of the Go Wider
Project, involved four general contractors with the goal of the
project to have the wall run to the Mississippi state line.

Ramsey said he learned there were two reason for the wall: to
prevent head-on collisions involving big trucks and to make the
wall high enough so motorists wouldn't "rubberneck" accidents on
the other side.

Mr. Ramsey said the city "did not initiate the lawsuit to recover
money.  We want to rectify what was done and get acknowledgment
from the state that it caused the flooding."

One audience member asked what would happen if the Cajun Navy
would remove the wall.

"That is the destruction of state property," Mr. Ramsey said.

"I advise against it," Mr. Palmintier quickly added.

"They would repair it in the next day," Mr. Ramsey said.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Green" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Madeline Green, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02142, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -
(Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-05014-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Green case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM PLLC
          12800 University Dr., Suite 600
          Fort Myers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 470 8338
          Facsimile: (239) 433 6836
          E-mail: jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq.
          Kimberly Tolland Mydock, Esq.
          Robert Eric Bilik, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798 3224
          Facsimile: (904) 798 3263
          E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  kmydock@mcguirewoods.com
                  ebilik@mcguirewoods.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Frazier" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joyce Frazier, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-03177, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05015-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Frazier case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          HARPER TODD SEGUI LAW OFFICE
          180 Meeting Street, Suite 230
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 494 5576
          E-mail: hsegui@seguilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay R Lee, Esq.
          AIKEN BRIDGES
          PO Drawer 1931
          Florence, SC 29503
          Telephone: (843) 669 8787
          Facsimile: (843) 664 0097
          E-mail: jrl@aikenbridges.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Haygood" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Frances Ann Haygood and Jose
Saldivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-02854, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria). The
Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
05016-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Haygood case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin Knox Nunnally, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          600 Travis St., Suite 7500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 255 6325
          Facsimile: (713) 571 9652
          E-mail: knunnally@mcguirewoods.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Wieland" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alex Wieland, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00431, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Eastern District of Virginia -
(Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-05017-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Wieland case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Patrick M Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON
          & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  pat@wbmllp.com


LYFT INC: Faces "Bodie" Suit in Southern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyft, Inc. The case
is captioned Jason David Bodie, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-02558-L-NLS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz.

Lyft helps commuters to share rides with friends, classmates, and
coworkers going the same way.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


MAPCO EXPRESS: Settles 2013 Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
If your financial institution issued payment cards identified as
potentially compromised by Visa or MasterCard in the payment card
data breach that was publicly disclosed by MAPCO Express, Inc.
("MAPCO") on or about May 6, 2013 (the "Data Breach"), the
proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit could affect its
rights, and entitle it to a settlement.

The plaintiffs in lawsuits brought by First National Community
Bank and WinSouth Credit Union claim that they and other similarly
situated financial institutions suffered damages and/or harm as a
result of a data breach with respect to personal and financial
information of customers who used debit or credit cards at MAPCO
retail locations.  Plaintiffs claim that MAPCO negligently failed
to prevent the Data Breach, and that banks or other financial
institutions suffered losses as a result, such as card replacement
costs, fraudulent transaction costs, and other costs and expenses.
The parties to these lawsuits have asked the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to approve a
settlement of the dispute on a class-wide basis.

The Class includes all entities in the United States and its
Territories that issued payment cards identified by Visa and
MasterCard as potentially compromised in the payment card data
breach that was publicly disclosed by MAPCO on or about May 6,
2013.  These include credit cards, debit cards, and other types of
payment cards.   Your financial institution may be entitled to a
settlement payment, and your rights will be affected by the
Settlement.  For more complete information about the Settlement,
please visit www.mapcobanksettlement.com, or call 1-877-361-3809
to speak with the Settlement Administrator.

Cash Payments to the Proposed Settlement Class.  If the Court
approves the Settlement, members of the proposed Settlement Class
may be eligible to receive their pro rata share of the Settlement
Fund created by MAPCO.  Specifically, the proposed Settlement
provides Authorized Claimants with two options.

First, they can make a claim to the Settlement Fund in a set,
per-card amount, without needing to submit documentation of
alleged costs and expenses.  Under this first option, Authorized
Claimants will receive a maximum of $3.00 per claimed-on account,
subject to a pro rata increase or decrease, depending on the value
of all approved Claims.

Alternatively, Authorized Claimants can seek a portion (up to 60%)
of their actual damages, by submitting documentation demonstrating
their losses and any amounts each Authorized Claimant has received
from Visa or MasterCard through those brands' recovery processes.
The amount an Authorized Claimant receives under the second option
will also depend on the total number of claims submitted.
Release of Claims by the Proposed Settlement Class.  If the Court
approves the Settlement, certain claims the Class Members have
against MAPCO and related parties will be released and
extinguished.

Right to Exclude Your Institution From the Settlement Class.  Any
member of the Class may submit a request to be excluded from the
Class by submitting a written Request for Exclusion.  If your
institution chooses to exclude itself, it can keep whatever claims
it has against MAPCO, but it cannot receive any cash payment from
the Settlement.

Right to Object to the Settlement.  Any member of the Class can
choose to object to the Settlement, or any part of it, by
submitting a written objection.

Please visit the website www.mapcobanksettlement.com for more
complete information about the Settlement, instructions for making
a Claim for a payment or excluding your institution from or
objecting to the Settlement, a printable Claim Form, deadlines for
taking action related to the Settlement, and answers to frequently
asked questions.  You can also call the Settlement Administrator
at 1-877-361-3809 for further information.

With respect to the Settlement, the following important deadlines
apply:

February 9, 2017: Deadline for Claim Forms to be received by the
Settlement Administrator;
December 19, 2016: All Requests for Exclusion must be postmarked
by this date;
December 19, 2016: Deadline to file and serve any objection to the
Settlement, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-877-361-3809 or VISIT
www.mapcobanksettlement.com

MEDIA: Jeff Dahl, 952-562-3601


MEMPHIS, TN: 6th Cir. Rules in Suit vs Police
---------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Memphis police cannot clear people off the street regularly at 3
a.m. without violating the Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit ruled.

As described in the Oct 17 ruling, Lakendus Cole, a police
officer, was walking on Beale Street in Memphis after leaving a
night club in August 2012. His fellow officers arrested him,
denting a squad car in the process.

Cole was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting stop/arrest
and felony vandalism. While the charges were dropped, Cole was
reassigned from the organized crime unit to traffic patrol.  He
filed a class action lawsuit against the city, claiming the
automatic sweep violated his constitutional right to intrastate
travel.  Cole claimed that the sweep led to police officers being
"highly aggressive, agitated, frenetic, and confrontational
towards individuals lawfully standing and walking on Beale
Street."

The jury ruled in Cole's favor, finding that the city failed to
consider whether the conditions on Beale Street posed a threat to
public safety. He was awarded $35,000.

The city appealed, arguing that the policy should not have been
found unconstitutional, and that the class should not have been
since its members were not ascertainable.  Also, the city argued
that the sweep was not the cause of Cole's arrest.

The Sixth Circuit ruled in Cole's favor in an opinion written by
U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons.

"The primary purpose of the Beale Street Sweep was to impede
travel, and it resulted in the broad denial of access to a
popular, two-block area of a public roadway and sidewalk," she
wrote. "This is much more than an incidental or negligible
inconvenience."

Gibbons noted that signs were posted regarding the sweep and that
deputy police chief Arley Knight testified that the sweep took
place "irrespective of emergencies."  She added that every member
of this class does not need to be identified.

"Here, the plaintiffs seek a single remedy: an injunction
prohibiting the City from reenacting the Beale Street Sweep,"
Gibbons wrote. "As the district court observed, this injunction
provides the sole remedy necessary to protect the affected class."

The judge also refuted the city's argument that the sweep was not
the reason for Cole's arrest.

"Two officers, including one of Cole's arresting officers, Chris
Bing, testified that Cole was arrested because he did not leave
the street when the police told him to move," she wrote.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin wrote a partially
dissenting opinion.

"Law enforcement is tasked every day with maintaining public
safety on Beale Street among thousands of intoxicated persons
concentrated in a two-block area with a history of disorderly
conduct, stampedes, fights, sexual assaults and gang violence," he
wrote. "In that context, the City's decision to clear a two-block
section of Beale Street for fewer than two hours in the early
morning hours of some weekends may be narrowly tailored (just not
the least restrictive means) to protect public safety."

Contacted by Courthouse News, Bruce McMullen, the city's chief
legal officer said, "The City is currently evaluating its options
including petitioning for an En Banc hearing."


METHOD PRODUCTS: Faces "Labrado Suit in N.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Method Products, PBC. The case is
styled Carlo Labrado, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Method Products, PBC,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05905 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2016).

Method is the pioneer of premium environmentally-conscious and
design-driven home care, fabric care and personal care products.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MICHIGAN: Detroit ICE Faces "Ongori" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Detroit Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. The case is styled Vincent Ongori, Islam
Anamul, Eric Kipsang Ahmed El-Khattan, and Kanapathippillai
Thayaparan, for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Petitioners, v. Rebecca Adducci, Field
Office Director; Detroit Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Loretta Lynch, Attorney General; Jeh C. Johnson, Homeland Security
Secretary; Juan P. Osuna, Director, Executive Office for
Immigrative Review; and an Unknown Stanaway, Lieutenant, Warden
Chippewa County Jail, the respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00224-GJQ-
TPG (W.D. Mich., Oct. 13, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Gordon J. Quist.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is an American federal
law enforcement agency under the United States Department of
Homeland Security.

The Petitioners appear pro se.


MICROSOFT CORP: 6-Month Oral Hearing to Begin September 2017
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a six-month oral
hearing is scheduled to commence in September 2017, consisting of
cross examination on witness affidavits in antitrust, unfair
competition, and overcharge class actions.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All
three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect
purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system
software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and
2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting
out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their
claims. A six-month oral hearing is scheduled to commence in
September 2017, consisting of cross examination on witness
affidavits. The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Inactive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Nokia, along with
other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant
in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used
cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of
users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint
in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants.
The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to
be served.

Microsoft also said that Nokia, along with other handset
manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits
filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by
individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from
cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse
health effects.

Microsoft said, "We assumed responsibility for these claims as
part of our acquisition of Nokia's Devices and Services business
and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these
cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-
trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a
separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the
use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines."

In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude
plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of
flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the court granted in
part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation
experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal challenging
the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence, which the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc.
Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the
appeal.


MYLAN NV: Dec. 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, reminds
investors in Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") of the
December 12, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company
and certain officers.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
Mylan stock or options between February 28, 2013 and October 7,
2016 (the "Class Period").  The case, Van Duppen v. Mylan N.V. et
al, No. 1:16-cv-07926 was filed on October 11, 2016.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by providing misstatements on
payments made to government health-insurance programs with respect
to the Company's EpiPen product.

Specifically, on September 2, 2016, Inside Health Policy published
an article revealing that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services ("CMS") "informed Mylan that it incorrectly classified
EpiPen as a generic under the Medicaid rebate program, which
caused financial consequences for federal and state governments by
reducing the amount of quarterly rebates Mylan owed for its
product."

After the announcement, Mylan's share price fell from $41.92 per
share on September 1, 2016 to a closing price of $39.97 on
September 2, 2016 -- a $1.95 or a 4.65% drop.

A subsequent Bloomberg article published on October 5, 2016, cited
a letter from CMS to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon stating that, due
to the misclassification, between 2011 through 2015, Mylan N.V.
and Mylan Inc. paid a smaller rebate of 13%, or about $163
million, when it should have been paying a rebate of 23.1% or
more.

Then, on October 6, 2016, The Fiscal Times published an article
titled "Lawmakers Say EpiPen Maker Bilked Medicare for More than
$100 Million", stating that "[t]he incorrect classification
appears to have cost the federal government more than $100 million
in the last five years alone."

After the announcement, Mylan's share price fell from $38.03 per
share on October 5, 2016 to a closing price of $35.94 on October
7, 2016 -- a $2.09 or a 5.50% drop.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/MYL. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Take Action

If you invested in Mylan stock or options between February 28,
2013 and October 7, 2016 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/MYL. You can also contact us by
calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-
9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.  Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding
Mylan's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers,
former employees, shareholders and others.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.


NHL: Modifies Concussion Protocol Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Helene Elliott, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that the
NHL, which is facing a class-action lawsuit over its policies
regarding head trauma and brain injuries, on Oct. 11 announced it
had modified its procedures and its concussion protocol.  The most
notable changes will empower specially trained spotters -- who
will watch every game at the league's New York office -- to
request the removal from games of players who exhibit signs of a
possible concussion, and the new authorization of on-ice officials
to require that a player be removed from a game and be evaluated
"if they observe a player displaying visible signs of concussion
under the protocol, following a direct or indirect blow to the
head."

The new policies and procedures, negotiated with the NHL Players'
Assn., were set to take effect when the season opens, on Oct. 12.
The league will fine teams that do not remove a player who has
been identified as in need of evaluation for a possible
concussion, and the fine will grow with each subsequent offense.
In addition, players designated for a mandatory evaluation won't
be permitted to return unless they are cleared by the medical
staff of their respective clubs.

The NHL has previously employed in-arena spotters whose duties
involved monitoring players for signs of concussion, but the
spotters had no specialized medical training and often had other
duties as members of stats crews.  Some of them were stationed far
from the ice, making it difficult for them to spot possible signs
of concussions.

Under the new policy the NHL will employ Central League Spotters
who "are all certified athletic trainers who have clinical
experience working in elite level hockey, and have received
training on the visible signs of concussion in the protocol."  The
in-arena spotters have received training on "the visible signs of
concussion," the league said in its statement, and their duties
will be limited solely to monitoring players for signs of
concussions.  The in-arena and Central League spotters will be
allowed to communicate with each other, but only the Central
League spotters will be allowed to communicate with a team's
medical staff regarding the removal and evaluation of a player.

The league has been defending itself against a class action
lawsuit joined by more than 120 players.  They allege that the
league failed to warn players of the effects of repeated
concussions, failed to adequately care for players who suffered
such injuries, and "promoted and glorified unreasonable and
unnecessary violence leading to head trauma."  The results, they
allege, have resulted in players suffered from or being at an
increased risk of contracting Alzheimers's dementia, and
Parkinson's disease.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has denied that there is conclusive
evidence of a link between brain trauma and chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, a brain disease that has been found in autopsies
of about 100 NFL players and about a half-dozen NHL players.


NEW YORK: FDNY Employees to File Racial Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Myles, writing for RT, reports that ten former and current
employees filed a racial discrimination complaint against the New
York Fire Department (FDNY) claiming they were unfairly
discriminated against over pay and advancement.

Employees announced on Oct. 12 they had filed a complaint against
both FDNY and the city via the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and plan to file a $150 million federal anti-
discrimination class action lawsuit against the FDNY and the City
of New York.

The latest complaint comes two years after FDNY settled a nearly
$100 million lawsuit over racial discrimination charges over its
lack of hiring black and Latino firefighters.

The complaint states that "the Department has engaged in a pattern
and practice of systemic, ongoing, continuous an intentional
discrimination against them [black employees] for a period
including, but not limited to, the past twenty years from the year
1996 until the present day (2016)."

The FDNY settled an anti-discrimination lawsuit in 2014 over the
hiring of uniformed personnel but civilian employees have seen
little change to their status and are still subject to race and
discrimination, according to the complaint.

"I have been an administrative manager for 15 years.  There have
been three white male managers hired sometime after me in the same
civil service title," said Frances Dempsey, a 62-year-old African
American woman who has worked for FDNY for the past 41 years.
"Even though I have been in the title for a much longer period of
time and have received commendations from the Fire Department for
my work performance . . . three are paid $25,000, $30,000 and
$35,000 dollars a year more than me in the same title."

John Coombs, an advocate for civilian employees told RT both Mayor
Bill de Blasio and the Fire Department Commissioner Daniel Nigro
knew about the problems two years ago when employees first
approached them, and they have meet repeatedly since then.

"They heard their concerns, they had documents, emails, hard
copies, they heard from the individuals.  There is no excuse for
not addressing this.  We didn't want a lawsuit," Mr. Coombs told
RT.

"What we find is that individuals, who are educated and more
experienced and entitled longer are repeatedly discriminated
against when it comes to salary, promotion and opportunities to
advance, they are left out, even when most of them have received
'excellent' evaluations.  That is wrong." said Mr. Coombs.

Mr. Coombs, a former president of the Vulcan Society, headed group
that led the federal lawsuit against the FDNY over unfair hiring
practices for black and Latinos firefighters.

The lawyer, Peter Gleason, representing the civilian employees in
the federal class action lawsuit, and a former fire fighter, told
reporters that every time he litigates against the FDNY he
receives death threats.

Mr. Coombs said for civilian city employees union contracts that
ensure equal salaries for positions, don't apply.  He said if a
salary is typically in the $48,000 to $52,000 they found that
black employees are earning just over $48,000 for long periods of
time and they never hit the top salary for years.

"The FDNY is an interesting lab study.  It has been white and male
for almost its entire 150 years.  You have in a very diverse city
this pocket of heterogeneity.  It has a huge tradition of families
coming into it," Ginger Otis, author FireFight: The Century-long
battle to integrate New York's Bravest, told RT.

"It an interesting study on how networking can support one group
because if one group has a certain amount of control about who
finds out about the jobs, who knows the inner tricks of the job,
and for a very long time the Fire Department was like the wild
west," said Ms. Otis.  "The civil service meant nothing.  The
well-connected got the jobs. They've cleaned up their act in the
past recent decades but it a text book study of 'opportunity
hoarding' -- how one group can get and keep hold of a very good
thing."

Ms. Otis said the FDNY has remained predominantly northern
European, including Italians, for most of its existence. She said
becoming a firefighter changes your life, few city jobs can match
it, when the average fire fighter salary after five years is
$100,000 for eight days work, and great benefits.

"A lot of times in the fire department, before it was hiring
outside staff, it used its own injured firefighters to do its
clerking, and to do its bureaucratic work," Ms. Otis told RT.
"That idea of 'use your own and hire from within' exists today.
It has gotten much better but it is still run by predominantly
white men and there is still a big block in these entrenched
places, high bound by tradition, to stop and look at their own
behavior."

Ms. Otis said one of the things that emerged during the lawsuit
was how incredibly weak its human resources department was, and
how incredibly behind its vetting services are, its training to be
aware of diversity, its inherent bias, none of that has been
spoken of or discussed in the fire department. She suspected the
same could probably be applied to its civilian hiring.

This is the latest complaint after a series of rulings to fight
discrimination within the FDNY over the last several years.

The city settled with the Vulcan Society, the black firefighters
group, for $98 million settlement in March 2014, after it was sued
for alleged discrimination.

Five female Emergency Medical Service officers, a division of the
FDNY, announced a $1 million settlement in 2013 of a seven-year-
old gender discrimination lawsuit against New York City, breaking
what their attorney called the department's "female firewall."

An appeals court in 2013 ruled that the FDNY must undergo court
supervision for five years to ensure it doesn't discriminate
against blacks and Hispanics in its hiring practices.

A federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis in 2011 appointed an independent
monitor to oversee the recruitment, testing and hiring of new
firefighters for at least 10 years.

The legal team said it wants to give the EEOC time to investigate
the group claims and then plans to file the federal anti-
discrimination class action lawsuit possibly by the end of the
year.


NOTIS GLOBAL: Class Action Settlements Await Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement of class
action lawsuits remain pending.

On January 21, 2015, Josh Crystal on behalf of himself and of all
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California against Medbox,
Inc., and certain past and present members of the Board (Pejman
Medizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and C.
Douglas Mitchell). The suit alleges that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial
results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of
the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks
relief of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses
or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April
23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three
related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez
v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a
lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015.

On January 18, 2015, Ervin Gutierrez filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws through
public announcements and filings that were materially false and
misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that
violated US GAAP. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained
as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued
an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter:
Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v.
Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company has
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October
16, 2015.

On January 29, 2015, Matthew Donnino filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The
suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial results for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim
financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief for
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all
damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23,
2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related
cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v.
Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead
plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015.

On December 1, 2015, Medbox 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") notified the Court of
the 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 originally scheduled the Final
Settlement Approval Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30
p.m., but continued it to August 15, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. to be heard
at the same time as the Final Settlement Approval Hearing for the
derivative actions.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 10, the Court
issued another Order continuing the final fairness hearing to
September 22, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., and then to October 17, 2016 at
1:30 p.m.

The principal terms of the settlement are:

   -- a cash payment to a settlement escrow account in the amount
of $1,850,000 of which $150,000 will be paid by the Company and
$1,700,000 will be paid by the Company's insurers;

   -- a transfer of 2,300,000 shares of Medbox common stock to the
settlement escrow account, of which 2,000,000 shares would be
contributed by Medbox and 300,000 shares by Bruce Bedrick;

   -- the net proceeds of the settlement escrow, after deduction
of Court-approved administrative costs and any Court-approved
attorneys' fees and costs would be distributed to the Class; and

   -- releases of claims and dismissal of the action.

By entering into the settlement, the settling parties have
resolved the class claims to their mutual satisfaction. However,
the final determination is subject to approval by the Federal
Courts. Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or
allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any
claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. If the global
settlement does not receive final court approval, it could have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to
raise funds in the future.


NU BELLA: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nu Bella Nail and
Spa I, Inc. The case is styled Lucrecia Alvarez, Lourdes Basurto
Cortez, Maria Elena Gonzalez, Alicia Nestor Camacho, and Lilia
Torres-Reyes, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nu Bella Nail and Spa I,
Inc., jointly and severally, and Yong Hoe Kim, jointly and
severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05721 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
13, 2016).

Nu Bella is a nail spa providing services like UV gel manicures
and UV gel extensions.

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


OASIS GOODTIME: Faces "Ramsey" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oasis Goodtime
Emporium I, Inc. The case is captioned Kristina Ramsey, on behalf
of herself all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Oasis
Goodtime Emporium I, Inc., doing business as the Oasis, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03825-ODE (N.D. Ga., Oct. 13, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Orinda D. Evans.

Oasis Goodtime described itself as a restaurant featuring nude
dance entertainment and alcohol service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harlan Stuart Miller, III, Esq.
          MILLER LEGAL, P.C.
          3646 Vineville Avenue
          Macon, GA 31204
          Telephone: (404) 931 6490
          Facsimile: (478) 292 7808
          E-mail: hmiller@millerlegalpc.com


PAMPANGA FOOD: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PAMPANGA FOOD COMPANY,
INC., an active California Corporation, HORIZON PERSONNEL
SERVICES, INC., an active California Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. BC637207 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, penalties, equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was terminated on October 29, 2015 after
approximately three months of employment with Defendants. The
Plaintiff had a non-exempt classification and was working at the
Pampanga facility located at 1835 N. Orange Thorpe Park in
Anaheim, California. At the time of her termination, the Plaintiff
was not paid all her wages. The Plaintiff was also deprived of
lawful rest periods, and failed to receive accurate itemized wage
statements.

Defendants had an alleged consistent policy of failing to allow
their employees, including Plaintiff, rest periods for at least
ten minutes per four hours, or a major fraction, worked, and
failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at their regular
rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not
provided, or other compensation, as required by California state.

Defendants are engaged in the business of production,
distribution, and sale of food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
          5023N. Parkway Calabasas
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 876 9627
          Facsimile: (888) 783 1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                  haik.hacopian@gmail.com


PELLA CORPORATION: Faces "Sturdivant" Suit in M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Pella Corporation. The case is
titled Andrew Sturdivant, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pella Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01776-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., Oct. 12,
2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron.

Pella Corporation is a privately held window and door
manufacturing company headquartered in Pella, Iowa, and with
manufacturing and sales operations in a number of locations in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Corrections Dep't Faces Hepatitis C Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Maria Barry-Jester, writing for FiveThirtyEight, reports that
Salvatore Chimenti already had advanced liver damage from the
hepatitis C virus when he filed a lawsuit against the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections in the summer of 2015.  He wanted access
to new and expensive drugs that cure the virus in 90 percent or
more of people who take them.  Because he is an inmate, when the
DOC denied him the medication, the only way Mr. Chimenti could
potentially get it was to sue.  "When you're in prison, you have
no other option, this is your only medical provider.  You cannot
get a second opinion; you can't pay for it yourself.  You are
completely under the control of the Department of Corrections and
their medical provider," said Su Ming Yeh, an attorney with the
Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project who is representing
Mr. Chimenti in a class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Chimenti's health has deteriorated since last year, Ms. Yeh
said. "Since we even filed the lawsuit, he has progressively
gotten worse in terms of his symptoms, and a mass in his liver has
appeared."  Depriving prisoners of treatment is considered cruel
and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution, which is why inmates are the only people in the
country with a constitutional right to health care.  She believes
the DOC's denial of medicines to Mr. Chimenti and hundreds of
other Pennsylvania inmates with hepatitis C is unconstitutional,
and though a Pennsylvania judge denied treatment to a prisoner in
a different case earlier this year, he came to the same conclusion
as Ms. Yeh.

As these new and expensive drugs become the norm for treatment,
it's relatively certain that state prison systems will be on the
hook to provide them to at least some inmates.  But how many, and
how much it will cost, appears to vary dramatically, according to
data from a study.  And even at discounted prices, most states
will spend millions of dollars a year just treating the worst
cases of hepatitis C among inmates.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has guidelines for treating
prisoners that include providing the new drugs. But the vast
majority of U.S. prisoners are held in state facilities; about 1.4
million people are in state prisons, compared with about 191,000
in federal prisons. I n their study, researchers from Yale and the
Association of State Correctional Administrators sent two surveys
to every state prison system.  The first looked at care across
states -- who was getting treatment, and what kind -- and the
second focused on how much corrections departments were paying for
the new drugs, specifically Sovaldi, which was approved for use in
2013, and Harvoni, which hit the market in 2014 (there have since
been several others).  They found that less than 1 percent of
state inmates with hepatitis C1 had received these medications in
prison as of Jan. 15, 2015.  Although the data isn't current --
the first survey captures the scale of treatment as of Jan. 15,
2015, and the second looked at prices paid for treatment as of
Sept. 15, 20152 -- it provides a snapshot of both the difference
in the number of inmates with hepatitis C among states and how
hard it is to negotiate drug prices.

Pennsylvania, where Mr. Chimenti is an inmate, reported that 14
percent of its inmates had the virus, 6,976 people at the time of
the survey. None was receiving treatment. (Pennsylvania updated
its hepatitis C protocol in 2015, DOC spokeswoman Amy Worden said
in an email. The state said it has treated nearly 100 inmates with
the new class of drugs.)

There are some significant caveats to these numbers, because
states track the virus differently.  Some states screen everyone
who comes into prison, and others simply ask inmates whether
they've ever been told they have hepatitis C. Some don't keep
track at all.  Still, it's the first time in 15 years that a study
has tried to show the number of people getting treatment in each
state system.

In September 2015, Michigan was paying more for a course of
treatment than any other state that answered the Yale survey. It
treated roughly 100 inmates at the full list price for the first
two drugs that hit the market, $84,000 per course of Sovaldi and
$94,500 for Harvoni, according to Chris Gautz, a spokesperson for
the Michigan Department of Corrections.  The state has since
negotiated discounts of 60 percent to 65 percent off.

It's not easy for state prisons to negotiate drug prices.  Three
programs regulate how much the federal government pays for drugs,
guaranteeing that it receives discounts for Medicaid, Medicare and
the Veterans Health Administration.  Federal prisons are entitled
to discounted prices, but state prisons are excluded from many of
the programs.  In theory, there are ways for states to hook up
with other health care providers to buy drugs at lower prices
through a discount program known as 340B, but in practice, it's a
complicated process that isn't easy to navigate.  At the time of
the first survey, just 16 states were working on getting discounts
through 340B.  Twenty-nine said they were trying to negotiate
directly with the pharmaceutical companies (and some were doing
both).

"The broader issue is that the U.S. has an incredible patchwork of
drug pricing regulation, and [state] prisons are left out of it,"
said Sean Dickson, a senior manager at the National Alliance of
State and Territorial AIDS Directors who previously worked for a
law firm that helped a major pharmaceutical company report its
drug pricing data.

The Michigan DOC estimates that 10 percent of its inmates -- about
4,400 people -- have hepatitis C and has taken an aggressive
stance on treatment in the past year.  The department wants to set
its own standards for who can get treatment before a lawsuit
decides the standard for it, Mr. Gautz said.  While some other
states aren't providing the new and expensive drugs to any
inmates, the Michigan DOC decided to cover people who could in
theory get the drugs from Medicaid if they weren't incarcerated,
which includes anyone with serious liver scarring.  To date,
they've treated roughly 400 people at a cost of $26 million,
Mr. Gautz said.  One-time funding from the state legislature is
helping to treat the inmates who are currently eligible, about 600
people, but the Michigan DOC estimates that it will need about $7
million a year going forward to treat new inmates and current
inmates with the disease whose health deteriorates.

Michigan says it isn't treating everyone because not everyone with
the hepatitis C virus will get sick from it.  While 75 percent to
85 percent will develop a chronic infection, only 5 percent to 20
percent will develop severe liver damage, and 1 percent to 5
percent will ultimately die of liver failure or cancer, according
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Despite the huge price tag, treating nearly everyone with the
virus has been deemed cost-effective and is what's recommended by
the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.  That's
partly because it's the best way to prevent others from being
infected in the future, and, as I wrote last year, providing
treatment in prisons is the only way to eliminate or drastically
reduce the number of people with hepatitis C because it's where
many of the cases are concentrated.  However, it would cost $33
billion just to treat all U.S. inmates with the virus, according
to a 2014 estimate.  That's a lot of money that corrections
departments don't have.  The study "gets to a moral societal
question," said Adam Beckman, lead author of the Yale paper.
"What do we do when something is cost-effective, but we'd have to
break our budget to spend on it?"

That question is particularly poignant in New Mexico, where the
Corrections Department reported that 40 percent of its inmates had
hepatitis C, the highest percentage of any state.  Alex Sanchez,
the deputy secretary of administration, points to the state's long
history with heroin addiction as the main cause.  To date, the
state has treated about 75 people, Mr. Sanchez said, and there has
been a 100 percent cure rate.  But by the Corrections Department's
estimates, it spends about $80,000 per week to treat an inmate.
That cost includes much more than the drugs -- things such as
additional security, special meals and treatment for other
underlying medical conditions -- but from a budgetary standpoint,
Sanchez says, those help make up the real cost to cure.

Like in Michigan, officials in New Mexico started treating
prisoners before a court told them they had to, so they could do
it on their terms. "Our goal is to treat people who need to be
treated, but we have to be cognizant that this is taxpayer money.
We don't want to land ourselves in some kind of court decree that
leaves taxpayers paying through the nose," Mr. Sanchez said.  "We
have something like a 50 percent recidivism rate," she said.  "The
likelihood that we're going to treat everyone and be done with it?
This is going to go on for a long time here."

Ms. Yeh says the Pennsylvania class-action lawsuit is in the
discovery phase until November.  After that, she will swap
information with the Pennsylvania DOC, including data on how many
inmates have the hepatitis C virus.  Even without that
information, it's fairly clear that if Mr. Chimenti wins, the
state will be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.


PHILADELPHIA: Police Department Sued Over Speeding Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------
Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt LLC on Oct. 19 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia for
improperly issued speeding citations.  The complaint alleges that
the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) has been issuing speeding
tickets on Pennsylvania state highways without authority since at
least July 2012.

The class action complaint against the City of Philadelphia was
filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in Owens,
et al. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 161000388.  The complaint
alleges that the PPD has been issuing speeding tickets on highways
such as I-95, I-76, and I-676, knowing that it lacked the
authority.

Plaintiffs Dominick Owens, Rachael Bell, and Mark Zych filed the
class action complaint, alleging specifically that under the
Vehicle Code, local police such as the PPD are prohibited from
issuing speeding citations on highways such as I-95 without a
speed enforcement agreement with the Pennsylvania State Police.
The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2012, then-police
commissioner Charles Ramsey issued a memorandum notifying all PPD
personnel that the State Police had decided not to enter into a
new SEA with the PPD covering I-95, I-76, and I-676; and as such,
the PPD was prohibited from issuing speeding citations on those
highways within the City of Philadelphia.

The result of these improperly issued tickets to drivers include
fines, attorneys' fees, court costs and increased car insurance
rates associated with these speeding citations. Plaintiffs also
allege that they were improperly detained in violation of their
constitutional rights.  The complaint contains counts against the
City of Philadelphia for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Kang Haggerty &
Fetbroyt LLC. For more information, call (215) 525-5850, or
e-mail info@LawKHF.com.  Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt encourages any
driver who may have been improperly issued a citation to contact
the firm.  For more information about this class action, visit
www.lawkhf.com.

              About Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt LLC

KHF -- http://www.lawkhf.com-- is a boutique business litigation
firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ,
focusing primarily in business dispute resolution, corporate and
other transactions, bankruptcy, and commercial loan workout.  The
firm also has lawyers practicing in class actions, insurance bad
faith litigation, securities law compliance and litigation, and
whistleblower actions.


PRIDE MOBILITY: NPC Mull Class Action Over Mobility Scooters
------------------------------------------------------------
Which? reports that customers have been collectively overcharged
by up to GBP6 million by mobility scooter firm Pride Mobility and
should be compensated, according to the National Pensioners
Convention.  The claim follows a 2014 decision by the Office of
Fair Trading that Pride Mobility breached competition law by
banning retailers from advertising its mobility scooters at prices
below its recommended retail prices.  This ban, according to
National Pensioners Convention's (NPC) general secretary Dorothy
Gibson, potentially led to customers finding it harder to get the
best price.

Compensation for Pride Mobility customers

The NPC believes that customers overpaid by an average of 13% for
Pride Mobility products, which works out as up to GBP200 per
customer including interest.  It wants to bring a class action
against Pride Mobility to get compensation for the estimated
30,000 people who bought mobility scooters between 1 February 2010
and 29 February 2012.  But Pride Mobility argues that its actions
did not have any impact on what consumers paid when they bought
their mobility scooters.

Mobility scooters

A hearing with the Competition Appeal Tribunal has provisionally
been scheduled for December 2016, to decide whether the class
action can go ahead. If you are one of the customers affected and
live in the UK, you will automatically be included in the class
action as a 'class member', and will need to opt out if the
hearing gives the go-ahead for the class action and you don't want
to be included.  You can get more information about the case by
calling Leigh Day -- the solicitors acting for Ms Gibson -- on 020
3780 0478, or visiting scooterclassaction.co.uk


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Reversed "Burton" Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded dismissal of a class
action in Los Angeles from a woman who said it took Prudential
Insurance 32 years to pay death benefits for her late son, and
underpaid her when it did.

In her November 2013 class action, Beverly Burton said she was a
beneficiary on a Prudential policy her husband took out in 1958,
and made a claim after she lost her son Roderick to cancer.
Though Roderick died in 1981, Burton said it took Prudential 32
years to confirm death benefits -- until May 2013.  Two months
later, Prudential sent her a check for just over $5,000 and
informed her that the money was for a $1,000 death benefit, based
on a 2.5 percent interest rate.

Burton accused Prudential of taking advantage of low interest
rates at the time and altering the language and meaning of
California Insurance Code section 10172.5 to avoid paying higher
interest rates from 1981.

In an Oct. 17 ruling, not for publication, a Ninth Circuit panel
found that U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell had
correctly ruled that the insurance code "consistently
disincentivizes insurers from delaying payment of past due
benefits."  The panel added: "Either fixed rate interpretation
advanced by the parties -- whether fixed at the time of the
insured's death, or at the time of payment -- could incentivize
insurers to delay payment under certain circumstances, undermining
the purpose of the statute."

The panel said Judge O'Connell should not have ruled for
Prudential on Burton's claim that the insurer underpaid her
because the Prudential never made clear whether it had properly
calculated interest rates on benefits from 1981 to 2013.

"Under these circumstances, Burton has sufficiently pled that
Prudential did not pay the required interest rate under section
10172.5(a) for each time interest accrued," the panel wrote.

Judges Stephen Reinhardt, John Owens and Michelle Friedland also
revived Burton's claim of breach of faith and fair dealing based
on her claim that she suffered an economic loss.

The case is captioned, BEVERLY BURTON, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.,
No. 14-56721 (9th Cir.).  A copy of the Court's decision is
available at https://goo.gl/RN1pJd from Leagle.com.


RAY BERRY: Faces "Morrison" Suit Over Sale of The Fresh Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MORRISON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. RAY BERRY, RICHARD A. ANICETTI, MICHAEL D.
CASEY, JEFFREY NAYLOR, RICHARD NOLL, BOB SASSER, ROBERT K.
SHEARER, MICHAEL TUCCI, STEVEN TANGER, JANE THOMPSON and BRETT
BERRY, Case No. 12808 (Del. Ch., October 6, 2016), claims breach
of fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty against Defendants arising from the $1.3 billion acquisition
of The Fresh Market, Inc. in a going-private transaction.

The Fresh Market, Inc. -- http://www.thefreshmarket.com/--
operates as a specialty grocery retailer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Randall J. Baron, Esq.
     David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 231-1058

          - and -

     Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2203


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 30 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During Q3
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that during the third
quarter of 2016, 30 tobacco-related cases were served against
Reynolds Defendants. On September 30, 2016, there were, subject to
the exclusions, 292 cases pending against Reynolds Defendants: 275
in the United States and 17 in Canada, as compared with 262 total
cases on September 30, 2015.

Of the U.S. cases pending on September 30, 2016, 35 are pending in
federal court, 239 in state court and one in tribal court,
primarily in the following states: Illinois (48 cases); Maryland
(46 cases); Florida (29 cases); New York (19 cases); Missouri (18
cases); California (15 cases); Massachusetts (15 cases); and New
Mexico (14 cases).

The U.S. case number excludes the approximately 564 individual
smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a
consolidated action, 2,888 Engle Progeny cases, involving
approximately 3,755 individual plaintiffs, and 2,421 Broin II
cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard
Tobacco or certain other Reynolds Defendants.

There are 37 cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled
for trial as of September 30, 2016 through September 30, 2017, for
RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco
or their affiliates and indemnitees: six individual smoking and
health cases, 24 Filter Cases, five Broin II cases and two other
non-smoking and health cases. There are also approximately 194
Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard
Tobacco set for trial through September 30, 2017.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial.

It is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried.

The number of Engle Progeny cases set for trial through September
30, 2017, includes 92 Engle Progeny cases set for trial in Volusia
County, Florida, but the trial court there has advised that no
more than eight of those cases will be tried through September 30,
2017.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 3rd Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that from January 1,
2013 through September 30, 2016, 143 smoking and health, Engle
Progeny, Filter and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR
Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and/or Lorillard
Tobacco were defendants were tried, including eight trials for
cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings.
Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco and,
in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and/or other
defendants, were returned in 53 cases, tried in Florida (50), West
Virginia (1), California (1) and New Jersey (1). There were also
18 mistrials. Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in
65 cases tried in Florida, and one in California. Four cases in
Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida was a
retrial only as to the amount of damages. In another case in
Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include
compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are
pending.

In the third quarter of 2016, 11 Engle Progeny cases in which RJR
Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

     -- In Sermons v. Philip Morris USA Inc., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 80% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 5% at fault, and the remaining defendant 15% at
fault, and awarded $65,000 in compensatory damages and $17,075 in
punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and $51,225 in punitive
damages against the remaining defendant.

     -- In Varner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco but against the remaining
defendant.

     -- In Morales v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court
declared a mistrial due to the death of a juror's family member.

     -- In Mathis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 45% at
fault and RJR Tobacco 55% at fault, and awarded $5 million in
compensatory damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.

     -- In Wilkins v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

     -- In Coursey v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

     -- In Jones v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared
a mistrial due to the potential bias of a seated juror.

     -- In Hackimer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

     -- In Oshinsky-Blacker v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the
decedent 15% at fault, RJR Tobacco 25% at fault and the remaining
defendant 60% at fault, and awarded $6.15 million in compensatory
damages and $2 million in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and
$1 million in punitive damages against the remaining defendant.

     -- In Sherry Smith v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent
35% at fault and RJR Tobacco 65% at fault, and awarded $3 million
in compensatory damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.

     -- In Prentice v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent
60% at fault and RJR Tobacco 40% at fault, and awarded $6.4
million in compensatory damages. Although the jury found that the
plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages, it awarded $0 in
punitive damages.

In addition, since the end of the third quarter of 2016, one other
Engle Progeny case, in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant, was
tried:

     -- In Wallace v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court
declared a mistrial due to weather delays and juror
unavailability.

In the third quarter of 2016, no non-Engle Progeny individual
smoking and health cases, in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant,
were tried.

In the third quarter of 2016, one Filter case, in which RJR
Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant, was tried:

     -- In Panzarella v. Charles B. Chrystal, Inc., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of Lorillard Tobacco.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 5 W.Va. IPIC Cases to be Tried in May 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In
re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir. Ct.
Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), five cases were
selected to be the first claims tried, and they were tentatively
scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2017.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir.
Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), is a series of
roughly 1,200 individual cases asserting claims against Philip
Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The
American Tobacco Company based on alleged personal injuries. The
cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense
conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of
remaining claims.

On May 15, 2013, the Phase I jury found that defendants'
cigarettes were not defectively designed; defendants' cigarettes
were not defective due to a failure to warn before July 1, 1969;
defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties, and did
not engage in conduct warranting punitive damages; and defendants'
ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct.

In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the
verdict.

On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
petition for writ of certiorari. On the same date, the trial court
issued an order finding that only 30 plaintiffs are alleged to
have smoked ventilated filter cigarettes in the relevant period.
On October 9, 2015, the trial court outlined the procedures for
resolving the claims of the 30 Phase II plaintiffs, which claims
will focus on whether plaintiffs blocked cigarette vents and, if
so, whether blocking proximately caused their alleged injuries.
Five cases were selected to be the first claims tried, and they
were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2017.

In June 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures
necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. The court will
set a revised discovery and trial schedule after the expert
disclosures are tested for admissibility, and it pushed the
tentative trial date to May 2018.

In addition to the foregoing claims, various plaintiffs in 1999
and 2000 asserted claims against retailers and distributors. Those
claims were severed and stayed pending the outcome of Phase I.
Also, 41 plaintiffs asserted smokeless tobacco claims against
various smokeless manufacturers, including 14 claims against
certain Reynolds Defendants. Those claims were severed from IPIC
in 2001, and the plaintiffs took no action to prosecute the
claims. They now seek to activate their smokeless claims. The
defendants have moved to dismiss those claims since the plaintiffs
took no action to prosecute them for 15 years.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,421 Broin II Cases Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September
30, 2016, there were 2,421 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida.
There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.

Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments
caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins.

In October 1997, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, B&W and other
cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a
total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments,
allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on
the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco
smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49
million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses.

RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86
million; Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately $57 million; and
B&W's was approximately $31 million. The settlement agreement,
among other things, limits the types of claims class members may
bring and eliminates claims for punitive damages. The settlement
agreement also provides that, in individual cases by class members
that are referred to as Broin II lawsuits, the defendant will bear
the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain
specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as "general
causation."

With respect to all other liability issues, including whether an
individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her exposure
to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specific causation,"
individual plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof. On September
7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement.

As of September 30, 2016, there were 2,421 Broin II lawsuits
pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Case on Nov. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000),
the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco
"lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003, the
Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay
pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case
described above. The stay subsequently expired, and the court
accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which
were continued by agreement of the parties. The next status
conference is scheduled for November 16, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 2017 Status Conference Set in "Collora"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in Collora v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR
Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conference
is scheduled for June 5, 2017.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 2017 Status Conference Set in "Brown"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in Black v. Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed
2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class of
purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference is
scheduled for June 5, 2017.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a decision is
pending on defendants' motion to dismiss the case, In In re Fontem
US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed
2015).

In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C.
C.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiffs brought a class action
against RAI, Lorillard, another RAI affiliate, and two other
defendants on behalf of putative classes of California, New York,
and Illinois purchasers of blu brand e-cigarettes. This action
results from the consolidation of two actions -- Diek v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. and Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC. The plaintiffs allege
that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for
blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims, omitted material
information, or failed to contain required disclosures.

On behalf of one or more of the classes, the plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive
damages under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., California
Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., New York General
Business Law Sec. 349, and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive
Business Practices Act Sec. 505/1 et seq. Pursuant to the terms of
the asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, RAI
tendered the defense of the now-consolidated Diek and Whitney
actions to, and sought indemnification for those actions from,
ITG. Pursuant to the terms, limitations and conditions of the
asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, ITG agreed
to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliates against losses
arising from the operation of the blu brand e-cigarette business.

On May 20, 2016, the trial court stayed the matter pending the
outcome of the appeals in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Jones v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, that
are pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The stay does
not apply to finalizing the pleadings and related briefing.  On
May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint. On July 1, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.  A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Harris" Case Dismissed with Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a California court
has granted RJR Vapor's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
but provided the plaintiff leave to amend.

In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed
2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The
plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they
potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The
plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's
Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq.
and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and damages.

RJR Vapor moved to dismiss contending, among other things, that
plaintiff's action was governed in its entirety by Proposition 65
and that the plaintiff failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice
required by Proposition 65, requiring that the entire case be
dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was argued on
March 2, 2016.  On September 30, 2016, the court granted RJR
Vapor's motion to dismiss but provided the plaintiff leave to
amend.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Smokeless Tobacco Case Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants
have moved to dismiss the Smokeless Tobacco Litigation.

In 1999, when the IPIC litigation was first filed, the named
defendants included manufacturers of smokeless products, including
Conwood Company, LLC (now known as American Snuff Company, LLC)
and others. When the IPIC plaintiffs filed discovery responses in
IPIC listing the products they used, 41 of them listed a smokeless
product. Six of those 41 plaintiffs listed a brand owned by
American Snuff (Levi Garrett). Seven listed a brand (Beechnut)
once manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco (now manufactured by
National Tobacco Company).

On December 3, 2001, the IPIC court severed all smokeless claims
and all smokeless defendants from IPIC. There was no order staying
the case during IPIC. In the ensuing 15 years, the plaintiffs in
the severed cases did nothing to pursue the cases. The plaintiffs
now seek to activate various smokeless claims, including certain
plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed in IPIC after severance of
the smokeless claims and whose claims are not counted in the 41
claims.  After a status conference on July 11, 2016, the court set
a schedule for briefing the issue of whether the severed claims
should be dismissed because of the prolonged inaction in the case.
The defendants moved to dismiss on that ground on September 26,
2016, and plaintiffs' response will be forthcoming.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Yet in ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that oral argument has
not been scheduled in the appeal in the ERISA Litigation.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, which the court granted in September 2008.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On
February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could
have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not
caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have
existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district
court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants
did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was
whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same
decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply
the "would have standard."

On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with
prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time
and in the manner that the defendants did. On March 17, 2016, the
plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court erred in
finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have divested
the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the same time and in the same manner
as RJR.  Briefing before the Fourth Circuit is complete.  Oral
argument has not been scheduled.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Ruling in Shareholder Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that oral argument
occurred on April 27, 2016, in an appeal in a shareholder case and
a decision is pending.

RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been
named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned
Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North
Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by
a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North
Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended
complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI
shareholders by approving the BAT Share Purchase and the sharing
of technology with BAT. The amended complaint also alleges that
there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction, and
that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by its board of directors. The North Carolina Action seeks
injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other
remedies.

On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for
January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur
on January 16, 2015.

RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.

On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The
plaintiff has appealed the dismissal. Oral argument on the appeal
occurred on April 27, 2016, and a decision is pending.

On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved the partial
settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed request for
$415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial settlement did
not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in
connection with the Merger.


SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Faces False Advertisement Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Sanmedica International
falsely advertises that its SeroVital-hgh can "turn back time" and
increase human growth hormone levels by 682 percent, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.


SANTA FE NATURAL: Bids to Dismiss Mislabeling Case Due Nov. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants in
class action cases against Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.
related to no additive/natural/organic claims are scheduled to
file motions to dismiss by November 3, 2016.

Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC
relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in
the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring
claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative
nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and,
in some instances, RAI.

A total of 15 such actions have been filed in nine U.S. district
courts. In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases
generally allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade
practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various
categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive
relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs),
interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion
before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court
for pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that
these cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then-
pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that court.

The cases that were filed in or transferred for pretrial purposes
to the transferee court are as follows:

    -- Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D. Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes.

     -- Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
N.D. Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes.

     -- Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative nationwide class (and California, Illinois,
Minnesota, and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and New York subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
M.D. Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative state-
based subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.D.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative nationwide class (and Maryland subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Florida and
New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.

     -- Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
V.I., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative class of California purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.

     -- Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     -- Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class (and North Carolina subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

The transferee court entered a scheduling order requiring the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On September
19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming SFNTC, RAI, and RJR Tobacco as defendants. That complaint
alleges violations of 12 states' deceptive and unfair trade
practices statutes -- California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio, and West Virginia -- based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. It also asserts unjust
enrichment claims under those 12 states' laws and asserts breach
of express warranty claims on behalf of a national class of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT menthol purchasers. The state deceptive
and unfair trade practice statutory and unjust enrichment claims
are brought on behalf of state-specific classes in the 12 states
listed above and, in some instances, state-specific subclasses.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks class certification,
payment for class notice, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
prejudgment interest, statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs. The transferee court's scheduling
order, as amended, provides for the defendants to file motions to
dismiss by November 3, 2016, a hearing on the defendants' motion
to dismiss on January 24, 2017, plaintiffs to file a motion for
class certification by April 3, 2018, and a hearing on the class
certification motion on July 13-14, 2018.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Asked Court to Clarify Class Definition
--------------------------------------------------------
Sei Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that SEI has asked
a Louisiana court to clarify a class definition.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.
All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against
SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the
uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in
all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing
back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions
allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise
participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court
deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion
would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class
certification. After the Court held a hearing on class
certification, it certified a class composed of persons who
purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates
of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the
class certification judgments.

On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a
First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they
asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims
against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013,
the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for
leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First
Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of
the action.

On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier defendants
removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana. SEI notified
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case
as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a
motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt the
state court's order regarding class certification, which the court
dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of the
jurisdictional issue.

On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against
SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI
filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of
Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on
June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion
challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class,
which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their
answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the
Northern District of Texas.

On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking
reconsideration of the District Court's June 17 denial of the
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking leave to pursue
an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the denial, as well
as a motion seeking partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims
brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On
September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to
dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify
for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B)
of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs still pending before the District Court are plaintiffs'
claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". SEI has
asked the Court to clarify the class definition because the one
remaining claim in the action - secondary liability under the
Louisiana Securities Law -requires proof that Stanford Trust
Company sold or offered to sell securities.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SG OF POMPANO: "Edelsberg" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mark Edelsberg, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SG
of Pompano, LLC, also known as Performance Nissan, the Defendant,
Case No. CACE-16-015972, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62422-DPG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.

SG of Pompano is doing business in the new and used car dealers
industry located in Pompano Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          1399 SW 1st. Ave. Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (404) 797 9696

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Tramel Stabile, Esq.
          Marcela Lozano, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6300
          Facsimile: (305) 381 9982
          E-mail: dstabile@shutts.com
                  mlozano@shutts.com


STATE FARM: Forced Place Insurance Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
anyone having trouble believing that their insurance company, or
bank could collude in such woeful, self-interested activity as
lender insurance need only look to the alleged activities of State
Farm, and Wells Fargo as an indication of behavior unbecoming to
their clients, customers and American values.

In September, State Farm policyholders gained class-action status
in a $1 Billion racketeering lawsuit.  Lead plaintiffs from Texas
originally filed a two-count, class action lawsuit in US District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  According to
information published in the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago
Business Journal, the lawsuit alleged that State Farm directed a
racketeering scam that allowed the insurance giant to avoid paying
a $1.05 Billion judgment previously upheld by the Illinois
Appellate Court.  Plaintiffs in the case asserted that State Farm
exerted political and financial influence in order to ensure a
particular judge was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court.

That Court later went on to overturn the appellate court's
decision.  Should the plaintiffs be successful in their class
action, some 4.7 million policy holders could share in a $7.6
billion payout.

Then there's Wells Fargo, the banking juggernaut that's been hit
with a potential class action lawsuit over an accounts scandal.

According to a report by ABC News (09/19/16) Wells Fargo was
tagged for an alleged scam that saw more than two million credit
card or bank account applications -- or actual accounts opened --
without the knowledge or express consent of the individual.

It has been alleged, according to a document released by Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and reviewed by ABC News that
the unauthorized bank accounts generated about $2 million in fees
for Wells Fargo, while a portion of the allegedly unauthorized
credit card accounts generated an additional $400,000 in fees for
the bank.

The allegations have yet to be proven in court, and Wells Fargo
took a hard line against those at the front lines of the alleged
fraud by terminating the employment of some 5,300 workers.

However the allegations have been supported by a $100 million fine
from the CFPB, $35 million in fines from the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and an additional $50 million in
fines from the County and City of Los Angeles.  Federal
prosecutors are investigating, as is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the venerable FBI.

None of the allegations surrounding State Farm and Wells Fargo
involve lenders insurance or Force-Place Insurance, a perfectly
legal and appropriate product forced onto a homeowner who, for
whatever reason, allows insurance on a mortgaged property to
lapse -- or is found to have insurance that is inadequate to cover
the investment the mortgage holder has in the real property.

The issue, however, is when banks collude with insurance companies
to over-insure a property, or force-place insurance that is far
more expensive with less coverage than traditional insurance
products.  The allegations are that kickback schemes between the
two parties allow for the parties to profit on the backs of
struggling homeowners, while exploiting the legal right banks and
mortgage holders have to require insurance on a mortgaged
property.

Forced-Placed Insurance Lawsuits allege cozy relationships between
banks and insurance providers that allow both to profit
handsomely.

One such example of a Force-Place Insurance lawsuit in John Manos
et al v. MTC Financial INC; Malcolm Cisneros, ALC; Ditech
Financial LLC; CitiMortgage INC; Federal National Mortgage
Association et al, Case No. 8:16-cv-01142-CJC-KES in US District
Court, Central District of California.

Among the various counts and aspects of the lawsuit -- proposed as
a class action -- is a Force-Place Insurance class that seeks to
represent "all borrowers charged for a force-placed hazard
insurance policy placed on a property located within the State of
California where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; the servicer
was Ditech; and the debt was incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes."

Americans have historically come to trust banks and insurance
companies as entities having the borrower's best interest at
heart, reflecting the values of one of the most respected
democracies in the world.  It is when banks and insurers work to
profit needlessly off the backs of hard-working Americans that
drives a stake into the heart of fairness.  Attorneys-General at
the state level, together with various federal regulators, are
engaged in a seemingly never-ending fight against such profiteers.
They are joined in the battle by plaintiffs ensuring they will
have their Forced-Placed insurance day in court.


STEEL DYNAMICS: To Settle Antitrust Lawsuit for $4.6 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, that Steel
Dynamics, Inc. (NASDAQ/GS: STLD) announced that it has entered
into an agreement to settle the direct purchaser class action
litigation, Standard Iron Works v. Arcelor Mittal, et al,  for the
amount of $4.6 million. The lawsuit was brought in Chicago federal
court in 2008 by a class of direct steel purchasers, alleging that
the company had participated in a conspiracy with other steel
manufacturers to restrict steel production.  A Motion for Summary
Judgment, earlier filed by Steel Dynamics, was pending at the time
of settlement.

The settlement requires preliminary and final approval by the
Court, which the company anticipates it will receive. Following
preliminary approval by the court, members of the class will be
given an opportunity to opt out of the settlement. Following court
approval and payment, Steel Dynamics will receive a full release
of all claims that were or could have been brought by all
participating class members. An existing, separate claim by
"indirect" purchasers is not affected by this settlement, although
Steel Dynamics and the other defendants have filed a Motion to
Dismiss. We believe the defendants have a strong likelihood of
prevailing.

"While we had great confidence that we would prevail on the facts
and the law, we felt it was prudent at this time to exit this
costly, protracted and distracting litigation," stated Mark
Millett, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We maintained at
all times that the lawsuit was without merit and that we did not
conspire to limit steel production. To the contrary, the facts
amply demonstrated that we both increased existing production and
expanded our production capabilities during the relevant time
period, and we believe plaintiffs ultimately recognized these
facts."

                    About Steel Dynamics, Inc.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. is one of the largest domestic steel
producers and metals recyclers in the United States based on
estimated annual steelmaking and metals recycling capability, with
facilities primarily located throughout the United States and
Mexico.  Steel Dynamics produces steel products, including hot
roll, cold roll, and coated sheet steel, structural steel beams
and shapes, rail, engineered special-bar-quality steel, cold
finished steel, merchant bar products, specialty steel sections
and steel joists and deck.  In addition, the company produces
liquid pig iron and processes and sells ferrous and nonferrous
scrap.


SUMITOMO ELECTRIC: Nov. 17 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Settlement Administrator, on behalf of Duane Morris LLP

In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation,
No. 12-md-02311
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Legal Notice

If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership That Purchased
Vehicles or Bought Certain Parts for a Vehicle in the U.S. Since
1999 You Could Receive Money from Settlements of Class Actions.

Lawsuits involving the prices of certain vehicle component parts
have been settled with certain Defendants in various class actions
in this litigation ("Settling Defendants").  The Settling
Defendants are identified below. The cases are separate class
actions within the lead case known as In re Automotive Parts
Antitrust Litigation, 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), which is currently
before United States District Judge Marianne O. Battani.

You may be part of a class action settlement if you are a Truck
and/or Equipment dealership that indirectly purchased certain
component parts and/or vehicles for resale or lease containing
these parts ("Dealer") in the District of Columbia or one or more
of the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin.

What Are The Lawsuits About?

The lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit agreed to
unlawfully raise the price of certain motor vehicle component
parts.  As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who
purchased for resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing
those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as replacement
parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any
subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant
may have paid more than they should have.  Although the Settling
Defendants have agreed to settle, the Settling Defendants do not
agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any
money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet decided who
is right.

The Court has appointed Duane Morris LLP as interim class counsel
("Class Counsel") in these lawsuits to represent your dealership
and all other members of the class actions.  Your dealership will
not be charged directly by these lawyers, and any fees that they
are paid will come from any settlements or recovery in these
lawsuits.  If your dealership wants to be represented by its own
lawyer, it may hire one at its own expense.

Who's Included In The Settlements?

Your dealership is part of one or more of the Settlements if it is
a Truck and Equipment Dealer and falls within the definition of
one or more of the settlement classes ("Settlement Classes")
approved by Judge Battani.  The class definitions are set forth in
the full-length Notice, which is available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

The term "Truck and Equipment Dealer" or "Truck and Equipment
Dealership" means an entity or person authorized to engage in the
business of selling or dealing in Trucks and/or Equipment at
retail in the United States.  A list of the parts included in
these Settlements and their manufacturers can be found at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

Who Are The Settling Defendants?

The Settling Defendants are:  Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.,
Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems,
Inc. (incorporating K&S Wiring Systems, Inc.), Sumitomo Wiring
Systems (U.S.A.) Inc. ; Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North
America, Inc.; G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S. Wiring Systems, Inc., and
G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc.; DENSO Corporation and DENSO
International America, Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. and TRAM, Inc.,
d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc.; LEONI Wiring Systems, Inc. and
Leonische Holding Inc.; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and American
Furukawa, Inc.; Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., Autoliv B.V. &
Co. KG, and Autoliv Japan Ltd.; and ZF TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp. (formerly known as "TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.") and TRW
Deutschland Holding GmbH.  A list of the Defendants, their
affiliates, and the alleged co-conspirators for each case
involving the parts described in the Settlement Class definitions
and settlement agreements is available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

What Do The Settlements Provide?

Generally, you are included if, at any time between 1999 and 2016
for Vehicle Wire Harness Systems or between 2003 and 2015 for
Occupant Safety Systems, you were a dealer of heavy-duty (Class 8)
or medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6 & 7) trucks, buses, commercial
vehicles (excluding automobiles, light trucks, vans, sports
utility vehicles, crossovers, pickup trucks, and/or similar
vehicles sold by automobile dealers), all-terrain vehicles,
construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment,
railway vehicles, materials-handling vehicles, and other similar
vehicles ("Trucks and/or Equipment") that: (a) purchased Trucks
and/or Equipment containing a Component Part, or (b) indirectly
purchased a Component Part as a replacement part. "Indirectly"
means you bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other
than the manufacturer of the part.

The specific definition of who is included in each Settlement
Class is set forth in each Settlement Agreement between the
Settlement Classes and the Settling Defendants.  Each of those
Settlement Agreements, and the related Complaints are accessible
on the website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

The Settlement Funds total approximately $5.1 million.  Detailed
information about the respective Settlements and the parts
involved can be found in the full-length Notice, which is
available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

The amount of money your dealership may receive, if any, will
depend upon where the dealership purchased the affected vehicles
or component parts, the type and quantity of vehicles and parts
your dealership purchased in the states listed above and the
District of Columbia, and the total number of claims made by
eligible Truck and Equipment Dealers.

What Are My Rights And Options?

     1.   Opt Your Dealership Out of the Settlements

If your dealership purchased any of the parts listed in the
Settlement Class definitions as components in the specified
vehicles or as parts and purchased such vehicles or parts in the
states listed in this Notice or the District of Columbia and does
not want to be legally bound by the Settlements, your dealership
must exclude itself ("opt out") in a writing postmarked by
November 4, 2016, or it will not be able to sue, or continue to
sue, the Settling Defendants (including all related entities
covered by the release in the individual settlement agreements)
about the legal claims settled in the settlement agreements.

If your dealership submits a valid and timely request for
exclusion/opt out, it will not share in the proceeds of that
Settlement, and it will not be bound by the judgment.  To be
valid, the request for exclusion / opt out must follow the
instructions set forth in the full-length Notice and be postmarked
by November 4, 2016.  The full instructions and requirements for
opting out may be viewed at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

     2.   Object to the Settlement

If your dealership wishes to object to one or more of the
Settlements or the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses, and service awards, it may write to the Court and
counsel about why it objects.  To be considered, your dealership's
objection must be filed according to the procedures set forth in
the full-length Notice and postmarked no later than November 4,
2016.  The full instructions and requirements for objecting to one
or more of the Settlements may be viewed at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

     3.   Attend the Final Approval Hearing

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 2:30 p.m. on
November 17, 2016, at the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231
W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 272, Detroit, MI 48226 to decide
whether to approve the Settlements and the request for attorney's
fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards.  You or your
own lawyer may attend and ask the Court's permission to speak, but
you don't have to participate in the hearing in order to attend.
To request to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must follow
the procedures set forth in the full-length Notice no later than
November 4, 2016.

This notice is a summary only. The complete terms, including the
definitions of what parties and claims are being released are set
forth in the full-length Notice, settlement agreements, and the
Court filings which may be obtained at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com


SUNEDISON INC: 15 Lawsuits Consolidated in MDL 2742
---------------------------------------------------
Fifteen lawsuits pending outside the Southern District of New York
were transferred to the Southern District of New York under MDL
2742.  The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 6, 2016.

The ten actions pending in the Northern District of California
are:

* BELTRAN v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 5:15-
   04981, N.D. Cal.)

* PYRAMID HOLDINGS, INC. v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. (Case
   No. 5:15-05068, N.D. Cal.)

* COBALT PARTNERS, LP, ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL. (Case
   No. 3:16-02263, N.D. Cal.)

* GLENVIEW CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET
   AL. (Case No. 3:16-02264, N.D. Cal.)

* OMEGA CAPITAL INVESTORS, L.P., ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET
   AL. (Case No 3:16-02268, N.D. Cal.)

* OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM v.
   SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 5:16-02267, N.D. Cal.)

* BADRI v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 5:16-02269,
   N.D. Cal.)

* IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC.,
   ET AL. (Case No. 5:16-02270, N.D. Cal.)

* PATEL v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 5:16-02272,
   N.D. Cal.)

* FRASER v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 5:16-02273,
   N.D. Cal.).

The three actions pending in Eastern District of Missouri are:

* HOROWITZ v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 4:15-01769, E.D.
   Mo.)

* USENKO v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 4:16-00076, E.D.
   Mo.)

* CHURCH v. CHATILA, ET AL. (Case No. 4:16-00628, E.D. Mo.).

The case pending in District of Maryland is CHAMBLEE v. TERRAFORM
POWER, INC., ET AL. (Case. No. 8:16-00981, D. Md.).

The case pending in Southern District of New York is BLOOM, ET AL.
v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL. (Case No. 1:16-07427, S.D.N.Y.)

This litigation arises out of the operation and demise of
SunEdison, Inc., a company engaged in renewable energy development
-- the financing, construction and operation of solar, wind and
hydroelectric power plants -- throughout the world.

The Panel has been informed of nine additional related federal
actions.

The Defendants support centralization in the Southern District of
New York but do not object to transfer to any of the districts in
which the actions are pending.

In its October 16, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The
actions share factual issues arising from allegedly inaccurate
statements concerning SunEdison's operational and financial
Condition -- e.g., its liquidity, classification of debt (roughly
$750 million in debt was reclassified from non-recourse to
recourse debt in November 2015), and internal financial controls-
and the alleged impropriety of its public filings.

Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge.


SUNEDISON INC: Transferred Pyramid Class Suit to S.D New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Pyramid Holdings, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Terraform Global, Inc., Sunedison, Inc., Ahmad Chatila, Carlos
Demonech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Marin Tuong, Brian Wuebbels,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-05068,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the  Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-07981-PKC to the proceeding.

Terraform Global, Inc. is a renewable energy company that owns
long-term contracted solar, wind, and hydro-electric power plants.

Sunedison, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
globally diversified developer of wind and solar energy projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian Berg, Esq.
      Takeo Kellar, Esq.
      ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
      11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 764-2580
      Facsimile: (858) 764-2582
      E-mail: iberg@aftlaw.com
              tkellar@aftlaw.com

         - and -

      Cassandra L. Porsch, Esq.
      Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq.
      Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER AND TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-5050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
      E-mail: cporsch@aftlaw.com
              jfruchter@aftlaw.com
              mtwersky@aftlaw.com

The Movant Furia Investment Fund Ltd. is represented by:

      John Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Thomas L. Laughlin IV, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Helmsley Building
      230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

The Defendant Terraform Global, Inc. is represented by:

      Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
      7 World Trade Center
      250 Greenwich St.
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 230-8800
      Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
      E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com

         - and -

      Jessica L. Lewis, Esq.
      Rachel Lee Gargiulo, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
      Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
      60 State Street
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (315) 369-8619
      Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
      E-mail: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
              rachel.gargiulo@wilmerhale.com
              timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

         - and -

      Tiffany N. Tejeda-Rodriguez, Esq.
      Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
      350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 443-5324
      E-mail: tiffany.tejeda-rodriguez@wilmerhale.com

The Defendant Sunedison, Inc. is represented by:

      Sara B. Brody, Esq.
      Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
      Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      555 California Street
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-1200
      Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
      E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
              jbartlett@sidley.com
              shemmendinger@sidley.com

         - and -

      Norman J. Blears, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
      Palo Alto, CA 94304
      Telephone: (650) 565-7000
      Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
      E-mail: nblears@sidley.com


SUPERVALU INC: Consumer Suit Remains Stayed Pending Criminal Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed in September 2008 against Supervalu
Inc. as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC remains
stayed pending the result of a criminal prosecution of certain
officers of IOS, Supervalu said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for
the quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 10, 2016.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and
the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for
coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were
part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however,
all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of
the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Feb. Settlement Conference in Suit Over C&S Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 10, 2016, that the
District Court has ordered a mandatory settlement conference for
February 14-15, 2017, in a class action complaint related to a
2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers,
Inc.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New
England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding
in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints
allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the
use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing
down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S
purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013,
the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation,
which was not successful in resolving the matter.

On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and
potentially other distribution centers.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs'
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's order.

In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the
denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff
and to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May
17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class
certification motion seeking to certify five District Court
classes of retailers in the Midwest and the Company filed its
response on May 6, 2016.

On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only
one of which is suing the Company (the non-arbitration Champaign
distribution center class). On September 21, 2016, the Company
filed a petition with the 8th Circuit seeking permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision. The
District Court has ordered a mandatory settlement conference for
February 14-15, 2017.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to
the mandatory settlement conference, it is reasonably possible
that the parties will engage in settlement negotiations as
required by the District Court, which may result in a settlement
of the matter. However, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the
procedural status of the case, the lack of a formal demand on the
Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' failure to allege any
specific, evidence-based damages.


SUPERVALU INC: Still No Hearing Date in Data Breach Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 10, 2016, that to
date, no hearing date has been set for the 8th Circuit argument in
the appeal in the case, In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into
its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the
"Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In
Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3,
2015.

On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the
Company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On
April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to
amend the complaint.

On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May
31, 2016, the Company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its
additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.
To date, no hearing date has been set for the 8th Circuit
argument.


SYSCO CORP: Violates Labor Laws, Calif. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Sysco Corp. violates minimum
wage and overtime laws, a class action claims in Oakland, Calif.,
Alameda County Court.


THOMAS AQUINAS: Faces "Lanni" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katarina Lanni, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Thomas Aquinas, Inc. d/b/a Brandy Melville
USA; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC637213 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Thomas Aquinas, Inc. operates Brandy Melville retail stores with
its principal place of business at 664 Santa Fe Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA 90021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Darren M. Cohen, 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
              dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


TRESEMME NATURAL: October 24 Settlement Claim Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Tresemme Natural
Shampoo and Conditioners reached a settlement over allegations
they contained synthetic ingredients.

You can get back $5 per product purchased.  Proof is only required
if there are more than 10 products claimed.

Deadline to file is Oct. 24.

Tresemme's makers are claiming no wrongdoing.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Resume Settlement Negotiations
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a federal district court judge has handed down a ruling that
has Uber drivers rejoicing.

The judge said a $100 million deal in a class-action lawsuit
between drivers and the company was unfair and unreasonable.  Uber
Technologies Inc. does not want to end discussions with drivers,
according to reports about the negotiations.  Experts in both
technology and economics, among other fields, say the case could
have resounding effects in the sharing economy.  Both parties
informed a federal court that they would resume their
negotiations.

Judge Edward Chen presided over the proceedings in late August.
In September, the company and the two drivers involved in the
class-action lawsuit against it wrote to the court to ask to
renegotiate terms of the settlement in good faith after the
proposed terms were rejected.  Uber drivers have staged protests
in some cities.

The competitor to Uber, Lyft, is also involved in a lawsuit and
settlement deal.  Over the summer, Lyft Inc. inched closer to
sealing a deal for $27.5 million that would keep drivers
classified as independent contractors.  This was after a $12.5
million deal was rejected because it didn't award enough to
drivers, considering the company's forecast growth, a U.S.
district judge ruled.

In this case, O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., drivers
initially complained that the company terminated their app with
little or no warning.  The class-action settlement involves
approximately 385,000 Uber drivers, many of whom seek to be
classified as employees rather than independent contractors for
the company.

Judge Chen ruled that the settlement would undermine or stifle
other claims made against the company and it did not show that it
would substantially increase drivers' income as the company
claimed in its assertions.

Kim Stone, executive director for the Civil Justice Association of
California, said the laws in California pertaining to
employee/contractor status lends room for confusion in
interpretation.

"California law does have a tremendous amount of uncertainty and
unpredictability in the employee/independent contractor arena,"
Ms. Stone told the Northern California Record.

Ms. Stone said the state even admits its legal tests are
confusing.

"Our legal tests are multi-factored and case law doesn't give
clear guidance as to how much to weigh each factor.  The state
itself admits there is a lot of ambiguity," Stone said.

Many in the sharing economy are anticipating the results of these
settlements.  On one end, workers who are seeking either
independence or employment status and on the other, new and
established businesses seeking to participate in the sharing
economy.  Ms. Stone said uncertainty plagues the state's workforce
and businesses because of ambiguity in employment and contractor
statuses.  This grey area has produced a great deal of litigation.

"This uncertainty is one of the reasons why we have so many
lawsuits about whether someone is an employee or not," Ms. Stone
said.  "Both employers and employees (whether independent
contractors of employees) would be better served if the law were
clear."

The parties were granted 60 days (Nov. 10 deadline) by the court
to reach an agreement.


UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Results of Class Certification Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties
are awaiting the results of a class certification hearing.

The Company said, "As we reported in our Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, 20 rail shippers (many
of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually
identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts
against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently,
UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in
the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these
claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007.
The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be
transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in
the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge
Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers,
which the indirect purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge
Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based
on various state laws.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified
a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives.
The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
address the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that
the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28,
2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address
the issues in the petition and to address whether the district
court properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court
heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the
Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and
remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class
certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and
incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the
plaintiffs.

On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a schedule agreed to
by all parties for consideration of the class certification issue
on remand.

On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert
report to support their motion for class certification. The
plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1,
2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015,
scheduling a class certification hearing for November 2, 2015.
Judge Friedman then vacated the hearing date in an Order on
September 28, 2015 because of the potential impact resulting from
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Tyson Foods v.
Bouaphakeo, related to class action certification and damages. The
U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in that case on March 22,
2016.

After reviewing the Supreme Court's decision and related briefings
from the parties, Judge Friedman issued an order scheduling the
class certification hearing for the week of September 26, 2016,
which was conducted as scheduled.  The parties are awaiting the
results of that hearing.


UNITED STATES: Thrivent Sues DOL Over Class Action Waiver Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Waddell, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Thrivent Financial for Lutherans became the sixth plaintiff
to sue the U.S. Labor Department over its fiduciary rule in a
complaint that challenges the class action waiver requirement
under the rule's best interest contract exemption.

Thrivent's case, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, takes issue with the Labor Department's adoption of the
best-interest contract exemption to the extent it requires
Thrivent to abandon its commitment to alternative dispute
resolution.  The insurer also contends DOL's rule would require
its sales reps to become fiduciaries.

The exemption, according to the Labor Department, "ensures
retirement investors receive advice that is in their best interest
while also allowing advisers to continue receiving commission-
based compensation."

Thrivent's complaint states the exemption would require Thrivent
"either to cease conducting certain business that is beneficial to
its members or to abandon its longstanding commitment to resolving
member disputes amicably and through private, one-on-one mediation
and arbitration."

The case comes as the investment industry awaits a ruling in
Washington federal district court on a request to enjoin the
fiduciary rule.  A judge there heard arguments in August in a case
brought by the National Association for Fixed Annuities.
Thrivent argues that it differs from other commercial stock and
mutual life insurance companies in that it's a membership-owned
and member-governed fraternal benefit society.  The insurer says
that for more than 15 years its articles of incorporation and
bylaws "required that disputes with members related to insurance
products be resolved through a one-on-one alternative dispute
resolution process."

To avail itself of the best interest contract exemption, however,
Thrivent "would be forced to agree contractually with its
customers that they could pursue a breach of contract action
against Thrivent and that they could participate in judicial class
actions against Thrivent," the complaint states.

Thrivent argues that no provision exists within the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act that indicates Congress' intent to
create a class action remedy that must be pursued in court.

Under DOL's rule, Thrivent's sales reps, who regularly offer
proprietary investment products for IRAs and rollovers from ERISA
plans, would be redefined as fiduciaries under ERISA and the tax
code, the complaint states.

"Thrivent's longstanding practice of paying these representatives
on a commission basis would -- for the first time -- be treated as
a 'prohibited transaction' under ERISA," according to the
complaint.

Thrivent argued if it were to continue to engage in such
transactions, "it would be subject to steep and serious penalties
under federal law.  As a result, without an exemption, the new
rule would almost completely eliminate Thrivent's ability to offer
financial products to its members in connection with their
retirement planning through IRAs."

Thrivent is represented in the case by a team from Greene Espel in
Minnesota and by Cozen O'Connor lawyers in Washington.

Micah Hauptman, financial services counsel at the Consumer
Federation of America, said Thrivent's complaint "is another case
in which an industry participant is grasping at straws to evade
accountability for its advice."

"If Thrivent or any other industry participant wants to take
advantage of the [best interest contract exemption] so they can
receive what would otherwise be prohibited compensation, they
can't include provisions that restrict their customers' rights to
band together when harmed," Mr. Hauptman said.  "This is not the
same as if the DOL prohibited such restrictions outright."


UNITED STATES: To Hear Ashcroft Appeals in 9/11 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sherman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 11 to hear appeals from former
Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller
and other former federal officials seeking to shut down lawsuits
filed by Muslim and Arab men who were detained in the U.S. after
the Sept. 11 attacks.

The justices said they will review an appeals court ruling that
gave a green a light to the lawsuit claiming that Mr. Ashcroft,
Mr. Mueller and the others should be held accountable for the
harsh treatment the men suffered in the months after the worst
attacks in U.S. history.  The former officials argue they cannot
be sued or held liable.

The court also said it will hear a separate appeal about access to
the courts from the family of a Mexican teenager who was killed
when a U.S. Border Patrol agent fired across the border from Texas
into Mexico.  The case involves the rights of people who are
harmed by American authorities on foreign soil to have their day
in U.S. courts.

In the detainees case, the Obama administration is defending
Ashcroft, Mueller, James Ziglar, the former commissioner of the
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the warden and
associate warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn
where more than 80 men were held, many of them charged only with
minor civil immigration violations.

A divided panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York said the men were detained "as if they were terrorists, in
the most restrictive conditions of confinement available, simply
because these individuals were, or appeared to be, Arab or
Muslim."

The appeals court said that "the suffering endured by those who
were imprisoned merely because they were caught up in the hysteria
of the days immediately following 9/11 is not without a remedy."

The new appeal, stemming from a class-action lawsuit that was
originally filed in 2002, is the third time the court has
intervened in lawsuits against Mr. Ashcroft and others from
Muslims who were arrested in the U.S. following the 2001 attacks.
The justices have twice sided with Mr. Ashcroft.

Only six justices will take part because Justice Sonia Sotomayor
was a member of the New York-based federal appeals court that
heard an earlier version of the case and Justice Elena Kagan
worked on the issue when she served in the Justice Department.
One seat on the nine-member court has been empty since Justice
Antonin Scalia died in February.

Arguments probably will take place in January so it is possible
that a new justice will by then be in place.  President Barack
Obama has nominated Judge Merrick Garland, but Senate Republicans
have so far blocked action on the nomination.

In the cross-border shooting case, the federal appeals court in
New Orleans ruled that the parents of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian
Hernandez Guereca could not sue the agent who killed him in 2010.

The Obama administration, while calling the death tragic, urged
the justices to stay out of the case.

Investigators said U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa Jr. fired
his weapon across the Rio Grande because he was attacked by people
throwing rocks.  Mr. Mesa was trying to arrest immigrants who
crossed illegally into the United States.  The teen's parents say
he and his friends were playing a game in the concrete culvert
that separates El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez in Mexico when
Mesa shot him.

The case turned on whether Mr. Mesa could be sued in U.S. courts
when the family and the victim are Mexican, and the injury
occurred in Mexico.

A district court judge first ruled that Mr. Mesa could not be sued
in federal court.  A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals initially held that Mesa could be sued.

But the full New Orleans-based appeals court ruled unanimously in
favor of the U.S. agent.

The case also probably will be argued in January.


UNITIL CORP: Plaintiffs' Individual Claims Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court has issued an order denying class
certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs'
individual claims remain pending.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an
order denying class certification status in July 2016, though the
plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court
arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Company continues
to believe that both of these suits are without merit and will
continue to defend itself vigorously. The Company believes, based
upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the
ultimate resolution of these suits will not have a material impact
on its financial position, operating results or cash flows.


VIZIO INC: Falsely Marketed Televisions, "Unie" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Unice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Vizio, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01568-DSC (W.D. Penn.,
October 12, 2016), is based on Vizio's sales of televisions that
were warranted and marketed as "energy efficient" and "Energy
Star" certified, when in fact Vizio deployed software that
automatically disables energy-saving features whenever any picture
settings are changed, without the knowledge of the consumer.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Vizio, Inc. develops consumer
electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jody B. Burton, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


VOLKSWAGEN AG: ChargePoint Seeks to Revive Dieselgate Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that in an 11th hour
appeal, ChargePoint, which runs a string of 30,000 electric
charging stations, has asked the court to reopen the Dieselgate
Class-Action Suit settlement, to keep VW from putting it out of
business, the company claims.

In the latest attempt to derail the Volkswagen Dieselgate class-
action suit settlement, the world's largest electric car charging
network wants the judge to order changes to the already-negotiated
agreement.  The reason is that it believes the agreement threatens
its survival.

Instead of thinking of the 475,000 VW diesel owners whose lives
have been directly impacted by the diesel emissions scandal,
ChargePoint, Inc. wants the judge to stop things so that already-
negotiated agreement can be changed.  The charging firm said in a
court filing on Oct. 11 that the $2 billion fund would let VW
"drown out all other participants in the ZEV infrastructure market
through enormous spending, made at its unfettered discretion, that
is untethered to the normal constraints and financial metrics by
which all other market participants must operate."

Major Network Operator

ChargePoint's claim was made in a Reuters story that appeared on
the run-up to the Oct. 18 hearing in the San Francisco U.S.
District courtroom of Judge Charles Breyer, who has been
overseeing the class-action civil settlement phase of the
Dieselgate scandal.  ChargePoint operates a network of more than
30,000 public charging stations.

Part of the $16.5 billion civil settlement is a Volkswagen
investment that would improve and advance zero-emissions vehicles
(ZEV) -- electrics.  The specific plan earmarks $1.2 billion for
nationwide spending, adding $800 million for California.

In its filing late on Oct. 11, ChargePoint claimed that letting VW
"flood a competitive market with $2 billion in goods threatens the
survival of the current participants in that market."  The
settlement, though, requires VW to fund infrastructure
improvements that can be used by electric vehicles made by all
manufacturers.

This is filing is the second time in two weeks ChargePoint has
filed a challenge.  The Justice Department, one of the
participants in the marathon negotiations leading up to the
Dieselgate class-action suit settlement, rejected the first try on
Sept. 30.  Justice added it believes that ZEV infrastructure would
increase in the coming years.  That increase will "allow for
continuing competition in these emerging markets."

Undeterred by the Justice rejection, ChargePoint filed papers in
court seeking to impose its views on the already-negotiated
settlement.  In its latest challenge, the charging company was
fearful that VW could "drive out all competition" by offering
below-market-rate charging services.  Its alternative, which
likely would force a reopening of parts of the already-settled
class-action settlement, would have Judge Breyer appoint an
independent trustee who would oversee the ZEV fund.  Or, it
suggested, the judge could issue an order barring VW from offering
charging services at below-market rates.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Order Approving Class Action Settlement Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued an order reversing the
district court's judgment approving a class action settlement and
remanding the case for further proceedings.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court
approval.

On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final
approval of the settlement. On December 17, 2015, a purported
class member who had objected to the settlement appealed the
Court's order. The appeal was docketed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument was held
on June 2, 2016.

On August 10, 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an order reversing
the district court's judgment approving the settlement and
remanding the case for further proceedings.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, that an Illinois court
has issued an order granting in part and denying in part Walgreen
Co.'s motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015.

Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on
December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the
motion on February 5, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part Walgreen
Co.'s motion to dismiss.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Plaintiffs Agreed to Stay Pennsylvania Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, that In the
Pennsylvania action, plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation
until after the Rite Aid Transactions have closed.

On October 27, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid") and Victoria
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the
"Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company agreed, subject
to the terms and conditions thereof, to acquire Rite Aid, a
drugstore chain in the United States with 4,550 stores in 31
states and the District of Columbia as of August 27, 2016. The
Merger Agreement was approved by Rite Aid stockholders in February
2016. The transaction is expected to close in early calendar 2017,
subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing
conditions.

As of August 31, 2016, the Company was aware of ten putative class
action lawsuits (the "Rite Aid actions") filed by purported Rite
Aid stockholders against Rite Aid and its board of directors,
Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims
arising out of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement (the "Rite Aid Transactions").

Eight of the Rite Aid actions were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware actions"), one Rite Aid
action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and
one Rite Aid action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action").
The Delaware actions and the Pennsylvania action primarily allege
that the Rite Aid board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions by, among other
things, agreeing to an unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to
deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose
all allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger;
and also allege that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger
Sub, Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.

The federal action alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions.

The Delaware actions were consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote on the
Rite Aid Transactions. The plaintiffs in the federal action also
filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
same Rite Aid shareholder vote. All such motions were denied, and
the Rite Aid shareholders approved the Rite Aid Transactions at a
special meeting on February 4, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed
to a settlement in principle related to this matter for an
immaterial amount. In the Pennsylvania action, plaintiffs agreed
to stay the litigation until after the Rite Aid Transactions have
closed.


YELP INC: Faces "Gruber" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Yelp, Inc. The case is entitled
GRUBER, ERIC INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. YELP, INC. and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 554784 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12,
2016).

Yelp is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California. It develops, hosts and markets Yelp.com and
the Yelp mobile app.


YP ADVERTISING: $2.1MM Accord in Call Center Agents' Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Dallas, Octpber 18, approved a $2.1 million
class settlement between the publisher of the Yellow Pages and
call center employees in Texas and Missouri who say they were
stiffed for overtime pay.

U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish signed off on the settlement,
awarding $840,000 from it in attorneys' fees to counsel with Baron
Budd.  The settlement ends a 2014 lawsuit from call center
employees in Dallas, Fort Worth and Olivette, Mo., who said they
were not paid time and a half for overtime and that the publisher
miscalculates commission chargebacks.

As part of the deal, YP Advertising and YP Texas Region Yellow
Pages agreed to drop a fraud counterclaim alleging
"misrepresentations they [the plaintiffs] made in the sales
process" while they were employed.

"The court hereby approves the proposed settlement agreement and
finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate with
respect to the defendants, plaintiffs and all members of the
settlement classes," Judge Fish wrote. "The court finds that
sufficient investigation, research and litigation have been
conducted such that counsel for the parties are able to evaluate
their respective risks of further litigation, including the
additional costs and delay associated with the further prosecution
of this action."

Lead plaintiff Christopher Dinkins said managers told the class
members to keep submitting timesheets after a computerized system
was installed.

"Furthermore, sales representatives were generally instructed by
management to not log in before 8:00 a.m., to log out for a one
hour lunch, and to log out at 5:00 p.m. in a typical workday even
though management knew/had reason to believe that sales
representatives typically worked longer hours than that," the
complaint stated.

"At times, when sales representatives were in a log in status
outside of those time parameters, managers would manually alter
the login/logout data to reflect less hours worked than were
actually worked."

Managers also told workers to research new clients and sales
opportunities at night and on weekends, the plaintiffs said.

YP did not immediately respond to an email message requesting
comment late October 19, evening.

The case is captioned, CHRISTOPHER DINKINS on Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, ET AL., Plaintiffs, VS. YP
ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING LLC and YP TEXAS REGIONAL YELLOW PAGES
LLC, Defendants., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1463-G (N.D. Tex.).


* Class-Action Challenge to Block EU-Canada Trade Deal Fails
------------------------------------------------------------
Zeke Turner, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Germany's Constitutional Court rejected on Oct. 13 emergency
appeals aimed at stopping the European Union's trade deal with
Canada.

The court was hearing the biggest class-action citizen's challenge
ever brought to it, with around 200,000 plaintiffs pleading for a
last-minute injunction to stop the trade deal, known as CETA,
before it begins to take effect.

The court also batted down a constitutional challenge from
Germany's radical left Die Linke, an opposition party in
parliament.

The appeals were trying to force the German government to change
course and withhold approval for the deal in Brussels, the
beginning of a ratification process that would include EU member
state parliaments and could last years.  Parts of the deal will
start to take effect before the approval process is complete.

Opponents of the trade deal -- which will lift some 9,000 tariffs,
including levies on beef and fish -- argue that it violates
democratic principals.  Once it starts going into effect, they
say, German voters will lose control of the laws that govern on
German turf and the deal could take on a life of its own.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her center-left coalition
partners have supported CETA as a gold-standard trade deal that
could save EU exporters EUR500 million ($552 million) annually in
duties.

The emergency injunction would have "a negative effect" on the EU
foreign policy and trade relationships, said Andreas Vosskuhle,
the constitutional court's president, on Oct. 13.

However, Mr. Vosskuhle added "the government must make sure that
Germany can unilaterally stop the provisional application" of the
deal and guarantee the chance for later judicial reviews.



                            *********

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  * * *