CAR_Public/161025.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 213




                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Thompson" Class Suit in S.D. Cal.
1944 FIRST: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
21ST CENTURY: MDL Panel Consolidates 16 Data Breach Class Actions
42-15 235TH STREET: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ABBA BAIL: Faces 'Ulten" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

AMERICAN EXPEDITING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
ANZA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AUSTRALIA: Ex-Camden Students, Staff Inquire About Toxic Case
AUSTRALIA: Drivers Mull Suit Over Peninsula Link Speed Fines
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Residents Can't Oppose Fire Settlement

BA2 LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Buchanan" Suit Says
BEAVER COUNTY, CA: SolGen Asked to Weigh in on Cyan Inc.'s Case
CELTIC ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Mota" Suit Says
CHEVRON CORP: Judge's Ruling to Seek Funding Agreement Correct
COLLINS & 74TH STREET: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

COMCAST CORPORATION: Faces "Shahlai" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DELIZIA INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DEVRY EDUCATION: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Advertisement
DIRECT HOME: "Mayfield-Dillard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Not Bound by Safety Initiative, Judge Rules

EMC BUILDERS: Faces "Solorzano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FRESH & EASY: Judge Refuses to Enforce Class Action Waiver
GENSERVE INC: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HORIZON CARE: "Royer" Suit Over Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KLEINER PERKINS: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty

LEROY MARTIN: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Unlawful Bail Policies
MARRIOTT VACATION: Responds to Racketeering Class Action
METALS USA: Dec. 12 Dura-Loc Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MYLAN INC: Faces "Perdue" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
NEW YORK, NY: DHS Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime

NEWS CORP: Judge Tosses Phone Tapping Scandal Class Action
PARIS BAGUETTE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PEOPLE'S BANK: Appellate Court Affirms Ruling on Litigation Costs
PHOENIX ACV: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROMPTIME HOME: Faces "Scott" Suit in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT

PSI SERVICES: "Kalbaklian" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machines
SAUL CHEVROLET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Rivera" Suit Says
SIERRA AUTOCARS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
SOUTH NASSAU: Faces "Foster" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Female Surgeon Files Pay Discrimination Case
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Sued Over Improper Loan Modifications
STATE FARM: Plaintiffs Respond to Class Action Review Request
SURFSTITCH: Appoints New CFO Amid Licensing Deal Class Action
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Patel" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Simon" Suit Consolidated MDL 2742
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
TRIDENT ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Werner" Suit Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Recent Rulings to Have Major Implications

UNITED STATES: Dec. 7 PTIN Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
UNITEDHEALTH: Artificially Rises Copayment Amounts, Suit Claims
VIGO COUNTY, IN: Inmate Files Class Action Over Jail Crowding
WAFFLE HOUSE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FCRA Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Fired Workers Allege Retaliation in Account Probe

WEST VIRGINIA PAVING: Plaintiff's List in Asphalt Cases Growing
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Averts Class Action Over Retiree Benefit Cuts

* Direct-Mail More Effective in Sending Class Action Notices
* Opt-Out Clauses May Help Firms Enforce Arbitration Agreements
* Senate Mulls Passage of CREATES Act Amid CFPB Proposal
* U.S. FDA Aims to Redefine "Healthy" Label Amid Class Actions


                            *********

1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Thompson" Class Suit in S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
J Thompson and William P. Duncanson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision
Direct, Inc. and Does 1-15, Case No. 3:16-cv-02552-LAB-KSC (S.D.
Cal., October 13, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' overarching
scheme to restrain competition in the direct-to-consumer and
online markets for contact lenses.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products
over the internet and by telephone throughout the United States.

Vision Direct, Inc. is an online retailer of contact lenses and
vision care supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Brian O. O'MARA, Esq.
      Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
              davidm@rgrdlaw.com
              bomara@rgrdlaw.com
              sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
              cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com


1944 FIRST: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ortiz Reyes and Tomas Soto, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 1944 First Avenue Deli Co., LLC
(d/b/a Dave's Gourmet LLC), and Derhim Nasser, Case No. 1:16-cv-
08073 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Deli located at 1944 First
Avenue, New York, New York 10029.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


21ST CENTURY: MDL Panel Consolidates 16 Data Breach Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman, Esq. -- lfreedman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in an
article for JDSupra, previously reported that 21st Century
Oncology suffered a data breach in October 2015 involving an
intrusion into its systems which compromised around 2 million
patients' records, including their names, Social Security numbers,
physicians' names, insurance information, treatment information
and diagnoses.  As a result of the data breach, sixteen class
action cases were filed against the cancer treatment provider in
Florida and California.

The suits allege various causes of action, but include violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, and delay in providing notification to the
patients, since the breach occurred in October 2015, 21st Century
was alerted to the intrusion by the FBI on November 13, 2015, and
patients weren't notified until March 4, 2016. 21st Century has
indicated that the FBI requested a delay in notifying the patients
in order to continue the investigation.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
all of the cases on October 7, and ordered that the consolidated
cases be tried in the Middle District of Florida.


42-15 235TH STREET: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Parra, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 42-15 235th Street Hospitality LLC (d/b/a Southern
Hospitality BBQ), SHNY Restaurant Group LLC). (d/b/a/ Southern
Hospitality BBQ), and Eytan Sugarman, Case No. 1:16-cv-08079
(S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate sports bars and southern
restaurants located at 1460 second Avenue, New York, NY 10021 and
645 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


ABBA BAIL: Faces 'Ulten" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Van Ulten, individually, and on behalf of the general public
and all others similarly situated v. Abba Bail Bonds, Inc. and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-at-01291 (E.D. Cal.,
October 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Abba Bail Bonds, Inc. operates in the California Bail Bonds
industry, with more than 15 offices throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David D. Deason, Esq.
      Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
      DEASON & ARCHBOLD
      17011 Beach Blvd, Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Telephone: (949) 794-9560
      E-mail: David@yourlaborlawyers.com
              Matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com


AMERICAN EXPEDITING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Morin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Expediting Company and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC637386 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 13, 2016),
arises from Defendants' failure to pay employees minimum wages for
all hours worked, failure to pay the proper overtime rate, failure
to authorize and permit paid rest periods, failure to schedule
services to enable all statutory off-duty meal periods to be
taken, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to
reimburse employees for expenses incurred in the execution of
their work duties, and failure to pay all wages owed at separation
to separated employees.

American Expediting Company and its subsidiaries or affiliated
companies, are engaged in the ownership, management, and operation
of distribution and logistics services for California, among other
states, offering direct-to-store shipment and related distribution
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Hamner, Esg.
      HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
      5023 Parkway Calabasas
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 876-9631
      E-mail: chamner@harnnerlaw.com

ANZA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Anza Management Company, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC637081 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 13, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Anza Management Company, Inc. operates a property management
company located at 2280 University Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather Davis, Esq.
      Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
      Nicole R. Clancy, Esq.
      PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
      136 Main Street, Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 290-3095
      Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
      E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
              amir@protectionlawgroup.com
              nicole@protectionlawgroup.com


AUSTRALIA: Ex-Camden Students, Staff Inquire About Toxic Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Telegraph reports that more than 100 former Camden High
School students and staff have contacted Marsdens Law Group about
a class action lawsuit against the NSW Education Department,
alleging it had failed in its duty of care.

The law group has been inundated with inquiries about the suit
since new developments were reported across the media.

Marsdens is investigating a link between the site which housed a
gas works and the health issues suffered by former students and
staff until the school's relocation to Cawdor Rd in 2001.

Minto father of six Sean Charters is among the former students to
join the class action since on Oct 9.  He has struggled with
gastrointestinal problems and suffered a ruptured bowel and had to
have about 45cm of his lower intestine removed three years ago.

Mr. Charters was prescribed useless courses of antibiotics or told
to change his diet.  "It was like having food poisoning every few
weeks," Mr. Charters said.  He still struggles with pain and can't
keep weight on, dropping from a 117kg to 53kg.

Doreen Clissold joined the class action when it was launched by
late former Camden High student Leonie Curry in 2012, convinced
her son Scott's just after his trial HSC in the late 80s was
linked to the site.

"My son used to come home complaining of the smell at the school.
He used to get headaches and have trouble sleeping and then he
fell ill and it developed into a brain tumour," she said.

Scott fell ill during his HSC trials and was diagnosed with grade
four astrocytoma, a serious form of brain tumour, and died in May
the next year, two months after his 18th birthday.


Sister Sasha Clarke remembered him as a fit and healthy young man
until his illness.  "He would come home and complain about the
stench and tell us about the bubbles in the soil.

"He complained about pins and needles during the HSC trials and he
went for some tests. After more testing they found the tumour. He
was dead after 11 months.

Mrs. Clarke said she hoped the class action would help the family
find some closure.

The class action is expected to be launched in the Supreme Court
next year.


AUSTRALIA: Drivers Mull Suit Over Peninsula Link Speed Fines
------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Harding, writing for Mornington Peninsula Leader, reports
that more than 60 perplexed drivers who discovered they were all
fined for travelling at precisely the same speed in the same
section of Peninsula Link are considering launching a class action
against the State Government.

The motorists are wondering if several of the point-to-point
cameras on the freeway could be faulty, with many claiming they
always used cruise control so it was impossible they had averaged
108km/h.

Jacqueline Smith, of Pearcedale, received three $190 fines in less
than two weeks in May.

She started a Facebook group called Peninsula Link 108's after
noticing complaints about unexpected fines -- all at the same
speed -- from others who regularly travelled between Skye, Eramaso
and Loders roads.

"It seemed I was not alone, and all our fines were for 108km/h,
which was bizarre," she said.

"There seems to be a significant pattern."

Mrs. Smith said she was keen to organize a meeting with other
bemused drivers at a service station on the freeway to discuss a
class action through a high-profile legal firm.

"It's power to the people . . . it's something I'm going to follow
up," she said.

Police said they were not aware of any concerns about the
Peninsula Link cameras in the past six months.

Acting Sergeant Julie-Anne Newman from Road Policing Command said
routine checks of camera accuracy showed they were all operating
correctly.

"All road safety cameras in Victoria are subject to a rigorous
testing, certification and maintenance program," she said.

Acting Sgt Newman said police could not comment on specific
infringements, but drivers could request internal reviews or elect
to go to court.

Mrs. Smith, who drives to and from Rosebud every day, appealed her
fines after realizing many others were in the same boat.

"I'm all for speed cameras -- they protect lives and people slow
down," she said.

However, she was confident she had not exceeded the speed limit.

"I think there are easily at least 100 people querying their
fines, and the group already has nearly 60 members," she said.

Driver Jarrod Salmon said he had received five fines in five days
for travelling at 108km/h in the section of road.

When he posted about his fines, he discovered 47 more people had
been fined for the same speed.

"Something is definitely dodgy," he said.

Between April and June this year, 15,861 infringements were
detected by the Peninsula Link camera system, totalling $3.6
million in fines.

Acting Sgt. Newman said the independent Road Safety Camera
Commissioner's 2015-16 annual review confirmed that Victoria's
road safety cameras were operating accurately and reliably, in
accordance with legislative requirements.

Point-to-point fixed speed cameras measure speed at the location
of the camera, and the average speed between the subsequent
cameras.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Residents Can't Oppose Fire Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
group of residents affected by last year's Avalon at Edgewater
inferno may not intervene to oppose a settlement in a proposed
class action against the operator of the apartment complex, a New
Jersey federal judge ruled on Oct. 12.

The proposed intervenors, plaintiffs in a state court action
against AvalonBay Communities Inc., argued that the offered
settlement would force them to release all claims related to the
Jan. 21, 2015, fire.  And their interests, they said, were in
direct conflict with those of the class and its counsel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson, in a 13-page opinion,
said the argument implied that the class members and their counsel
"are not interested" in maximizing the value of the settlement.
But, he noted, that the implication had no factual basis in the
record before the court.

Judge Dickson said the settlement would have no bearing on the
interests of the proposed intervenors because, like class members
they would have the choice to participate, object or opt out of
the settlement.  In fact, they even had the additional option to
opt out and proceed with their pending suit in New Jersey Superior
Court, he said.

"In that regard, it can be argued that they are more protected
than all other class members.  The Proposed Intervenors have
failed to demonstrate that, if they are prevented from
intervening, their claims will be impaired," Judge Dickson said.

Nor could they show that their interests were not adequately
represented in the federal action because the plaintiffs in both
the federal and state class actions were trying to maximize their
recovery on personal injury claims, he found.

And denying intervention as a right, Judge Dickson refused to use
the court's discretion to grant intervention permissively.
Judge Dickson did, however, allow the proposed intervenors to file
an amicus brief on a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, in order to address other issues raised in their
filings.

Under the proposed settlement, residents of the Avalon's Russell
complex who have not already settled with AvalonBay would be able
to recover up to 100 percent of their property damage from the
fire, which razed the building but left the adjacent River Mews
building intact.  The claims would be handled by an independent
adjuster, and there would be no cap on the potential payout.

Daniel R. Lapinski -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- acting as a co-lead
attorney for the class, said he was happy to have the intervention
issue squared away, so that his clients can work toward approval
of the proposed settlement.  He said the intention of the
potential intervenors was just to "make noise" over the terms of a
settlement that they would have opted out of anyway.

"They weren't coming in to protect their interests," said
Mr. Lapinski, a partner in Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer's Woodbridge
office.

Michael J. Epstein, who represented the proposed intervenors, said
he was "disappointed" with the ruling, and that he was evaluating
how best to raise objections to the decision.  And he said he was
committed to litigating some 55 cases pending against AvalonBay in
Superior Court.

"We still feel strongly that the best way to litigate these cases
is individually," said Mr. Epstein, a partner at the Epstein Law
Firm in Rochelle Park.

The Superior Court cases, he said, were still in the discovery
phase.


BA2 LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Buchanan" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Buchanan, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. BA2, LLC, d/b/a 1933 Group and Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC637355 (Cal. Super. Ct., October
14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

BA2, LLC owns and operates bars, night clubs and other related
facilities in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Young W. Ryu, Esq.
      Kelly Kim, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
      A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 365-8686
      Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
      E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
              kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com


BEAVER COUNTY, CA: SolGen Asked to Weigh in on Cyan Inc.'s Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Jacobson, writing for Northern California Record, reports the
U.S. Supreme Court has asked the solicitor general to weigh in on
a jurisdiction question for a federal securities lawsuit out of
California.

The case of Cyan Inc. vs. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
is currently in front of the nation's highest court.  The issue at
hand is whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over
specific class actions.

The case could set a precedent for where class actions are
decided.

"It will change the way (class action suits) are brought to
court," Attorney Boris Feldman told the Northern California
Record.  "If the Supreme Court takes the case and we prevail, than
it will knock out Section 11 suits in state court, which will be a
big deal."

Mr. Feldman, who represents Cyan Inc. in the federal case, said
Section 11 cases deal with false or misleading IPO perspectives.

The original class action began in 2013 after investors said Cyan
Inc. failed to warn them that the company's revenues were
dependent on two limited life projects, and that both projects
were coming to a close. Investors argued the company was required
to disclose those facts before giving stock options.

Under the Securities Act of 1933, class actions suits are to be
litigated in state court.  Subsequent laws, including the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act (SLUSA), altered the
rules for covered class action lawsuits to be tried in federal
courts.  Federal judges were left to decide whether SLUSA
eliminated state jurisdiction altogether, which makes the case of
Cyan Inc. especially important to case law.

Mr. Feldman said the threshold for Section 11 cases is much higher
in federal court than it is in state court.

"We're pretty confident that if the Cyan case had been brought in
federal court it would've been tossed on its ear," he said.

Advocates for reform argue that more litigation could harm efforts
to raise capital and promote entrepreneurship.

This can be especially harmful to areas of California such as
Silicon Valley, where tech start-ups and entrepreneurs face
turbulent and unpredictable financial landscapes.

Mr. Feldman argues that SLUSA should overrule the Securities Act
of 1933, and by California still allowing class action suits such
as the one brought against Cyan Inc., it's only hurting the
state's overall economy.

"Our state is an IPO factory, and whenever the price dips from the
IPO price you can get sued in state court," he said.  "We think
it's beneficial to them that if they're sued they can only be sued
in federal court. Federal judges are pretty good about throwing
out suits that don't have merit."

He said he is hopeful the Supreme Court will take up the case and
rule in favor of Cyan Inc., not just for the company itself but to
eliminate the risk burgeoning companies that offer IPOs face.

"We were encouraged that (the U.S. Supreme Court) is looking at it
seriously enough that they've asked the solicitor general to share
his views," he said.  "But beyond that, who knows?"


CELTIC ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Mota" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelio Mota and Mayko Mota, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Celtic Environmental, Inc., Celtic
Environmental Company, and Joseph Smrz, Jr., Case No. 1:16-cv-
09753 (N.D. Ill., October 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate an environmental consultancy company
located at 8128 47th Street, Lyons, Illinois 60534.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa L. Clay, Esq.
      LISA L. CLAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      345 North Canal Street, Suite C202
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 753-5302
      E-mail: lclayaal@gmail.com

           - and -

      Juan M. Soliz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUAN M. SOLIZ & ASSOCIATES
      3203 S. Pulaski Road
      Chicago, IL 60623
      Telephone: (773) 277-6155
      Facsimile: (773) 277-6157
      E-mail: lawsoliz@sbcglobal.net


CHEVRON CORP: Judge's Ruling to Seek Funding Agreement Correct
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Julia Gewolb, legal counsel at one of the largest litigation
finance companies, says a California federal judge was correct to
order a plaintiff in a proposed class action against Chevron Corp.
to produce his litigation funding agreement -- a rare step taken
in cases funded by third parties.

"I actually think the order was right," Ms. Gewolb, of Bentham
IMF, recently told Legal Newsline.  "I think the judge did the
right thing in this case.

"But I think the reaction to it was blown a little bit out of
proportion."

On Aug. 5, Judge Susan Illston, of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, granted Chevron's motion
requiring plaintiff Natta Iyela Gbarabe to produce his funding
agreement.  The identity of the funder has not been disclosed yet
in court records.

The plaintiff filed a proposed class action against the oil giant
over a January 2012 gas explosion off the coast of Nigeria.
Ms. Gbarabe alleges he and others similarly situated suffered
financial and personal losses, including health issues, as a
result of the explosion.

Judge Illston said in her August ruling that considering the
circumstances of the case, the litigation funding agreement was
relevant.

"The confidentiality provision of the funding agreement does not
prohibit plaintiff from producing the agreement, and instead
simply states that 'if at any time such a requirement [to produce
the agreement] arises or to do so would be prudent . . . the
lawyers will promptly take all such steps as reasonably
practicable to make such disclosure . . . '" the judge wrote in
her seven-page order.

Ms. Gewolb said the specifics of a case are what matter.

And in Ms. Gbarabe, she said, the plaintiff conceded two of the
strongest and most common arguments against production of funding
agreements: relevance and privilege.

"Here, the plaintiffs attorneys were two lawyers who were working
out of their homes and admitted they were uniquely reliant on
funding," Ms. Gewolb explained.  "Their only argument was the
confidentiality agreement within the funding agreement, but it
allowed for production pursuant to court order.

"So, I think the judge's order made a lot of sense."

It has become commonplace for third-party funders to pay the owner
of a civil claim upfront in return for the claim owner's promise
to convey a portion of the potential recovery.

This brings tax advantages for both the third-party funders and
class action plaintiffs attorneys, allowing them to defer tax
liability on the monetary advancement until the claim pays off
while the funders deduct expenses and pay taxes on profit accrued
at the lower capital-gains rate. These agreements routinely are
entered confidentially.

Bentham, which provides funding to plaintiffs and law firms for
large legal disputes, established its foothold in Australia before
opening an office in the U.S. about five years ago.  The company
quickly has become a leading litigation funder, dealing in
commercial funding, law firm financing, whistleblower funding,
appeal funding and some pro bono, public interest cases, according
to its website.

It does not invest in class actions, Ms. Gewolb noted.

"The cases we typically fund involve pretty sophisticated
plaintiffs," she said.

Ms. Gewolb said most of the cases referred to Bentham come from
attorneys and claimants who are looking for funding for a variety
of reasons: to cover some or all attorneys fees, the costs of
experts or, sometimes, working capital.

However, the company always does its due diligence before backing
a case, Ms. Gewolb said.  Typically, it only invests in about 5
percent of the cases that come through its doors, she said.

"We have an open dialogue about the claims, and we do our own
research," she explained.  "We're all former litigators here, so
we know how to evaluate a claim.  We know whether it's likely to
be successful or not."

Bentham is one of three litigation funding companies that have
come out against a proposed rules change that would require
disclosure of third-party litigation financing.

In 2014, it joined Gerchen Keller Capital LLC and Burford Capital
LLC in writing a letter to the 15-member Advisory Committee on
Civil Rules regarding an amendment to Federal Rule of Procedure
26.

The amendment was proposed by the U.S. Chamber's Institute for
Legal Reform and others. ILR owns Legal Newsline.

ILR President Lisa Rickard wrote in 2014 that the amendment would
produce four positive outcomes:

   -- By identifying persons/entities with a stake in the outcome
of the litigation, the contemplated disclosures would allow courts
and counsel to ensure compliance with ethical obligations;

   -- The proposed amendment would satisfy defendants' entitlement
to know who is really on the other side of an action;

   -- A litigation-funding disclosure provision would facilitate a
fuller, fairer discussion of motions for cost-shifting in cases
involving onerous e-discovery; and

   -- The disclosure of TPLF arrangements would be important
information to have on the record in the event that a court
determines it should impose sanctions or other costs.

The litigation funders have argued that such a proposed amendment
is "unnecessary, untimely and contrary to the purpose of Rule 26."

Twice, in 2014 and earlier this year, the committee has considered
a disclosure rule.  Both times, it decided to keep monitoring the
issue, saying it didn't have enough information to proceed.

Ms. Gewolb said the committee is right to take a "very measured
approach" to the topic.

"While it's a very hot topic -- and for a very good reason -- it's
still pretty small and still very much developing," she said of
third-party litigation funding.

She contends that such disclosures should always be fact-
dependent.

"There's no need for a blanket rule that all funding agreements
should be disclosed," Ms. Gewolb said, pointing to a case in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last
year.

In Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LP, the federal court denied
the defendant's motion to compel.  The class action plaintiff
objected to producing funding documents on the basis that they
were irrelevant to the issues in the case, including adequacy of
class action counsel.

"Just because there's a funder in a case, that doesn't make it
relevant," Ms. Gewolb said.  "In that sense, I think the two
decisions (Gbarabe and Kaplan) are very consistent with one
another."

And there's no reason to think that Judge Illston's decision in
Ms. Gbarabe will lead to a flood of disclosure in class action
cases, Ms. Gewolb said.

"I think it will always be a case-by-case thing," she said.  "I
think the facts in each case are so unique, there can't be any
bright-line rule."

Not to mention, requiring disclosure of such agreements across the
board would make things tougher for plaintiffs, she said.

"It could chill good cases, preventing them from being brought
because everyone's too worried about the discovery sideshow,"
Ms. Gewolb said.


COLLINS & 74TH STREET: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Reyes, and all others similarly situated v. Collins & 74th
Street, Inc. and Mohammed S. Hossain, Case No. 1:16-cv-24362-JAL
(S.D. Fla., October 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 7446
Collins Ave, Miami Beach, FL, 33141-2714.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMCAST CORPORATION: Faces "Shahlai" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramin Shahlai, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-02556
(D. Col. October 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Comcast Corporation is a cable TV and internet service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandt Milstein, Esq.
     MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
     595 Canyon Boulevard
     Boulder, CO 80302
     Telephone: (303) 440-8780
     E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

         - and -

     Andrew Turner, Esq.
     BUESCHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
     600 Grant Street, Suite 450
     Denver, CO 80203
     Telephone: (303) 333-7751
     E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com

DELIZIA INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Medari Jamileth Rodriguez Martinez, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Delizia Inc.,
d/b/a Bosco Bakery Cafe, Cake Salon Bosco, Inc., d/b/a Bosco
Bakery and Bosco Bakery Cafe, Allink, Inc. d/b/a Bosco Bakery and
Bosco Bakery Cafe, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC637281 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 14, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies.

The Defendants own and operate Bosco Bakery Cafe in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Dalia Khalili, Esq.
      Shayna E. Dickstein, 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@matemlawgroup.com
              dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
              sdickstein@maternlawgroup.com


DEVRY EDUCATION: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Advertisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Petrizzo, Renee Heather Polly, Brandy Van Buren, Melissa
Lotzman, Jamison Purry, and Cheryl Costello, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DeVry Education Group
Inc., DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-09754 (N.D. Ill., October 14, 2016), asserts that the
Defendants falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment
rates of DeVry graduates in their field.

The Defendants operate a private, for-profit, post-secondary
educational institution located at 3005 Highland Parkway, Downers
Grove, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

           - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: burt@whafh.com

           - and -

      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: egleston@gme-law.com
              tjmckenna@gme-law.com


DIRECT HOME: "Mayfield-Dillard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leila Mayfield-Dillard and Cornell Dillard, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Direct Home Health
Care, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-03489 (D. Minn., October 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Direct Home Health Care, Inc. owns and operates a home health care
facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com

           - and -

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
              scott@bohrerbrady.com


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Not Bound by Safety Initiative, Judge Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
voluntary industry safety initiative does not set up formal
standards binding Eastman Chemical, a federal judge ruled on
Oct. 13 in another decision that helps frame the upcoming trial of
a class-action lawsuit over the January 2014 chemical spill on the
Elk River, a federal judge ruled on Oct. 13.

U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver Jr. granted a motion from
Eastman, which argued that the "Responsible Care" program -- a
much-touted effort by a chemical industry lobby group -- did not
independently create some duty that Eastman owed to residents and
businesses who are suing over the company's role in selling to
Freedom Industries Crude MCHM, the primary chemical involved in
the spill that contaminated the region's drinking water supply.

The ruling is the latest in a series of decisions that Judge
Copenhaver has made in the weeks prior to the scheduled start on
Oct. 25 of jury selection in the case against Eastman and West
Virginia American Water Co. over the water crisis the occurred
following the contamination of the area's drinking water after the
spill.

The lawsuit alleges that West Virginia American did not adequately
plan for or respond to the spill, and that Eastman did not
properly caution Freedom about the potential dangers of Crude
MCHM.  Last year, Judge Copenhaver approved the case being pursued
as a class-action over the liability, or fault, of the water
company and Eastman.  The judge did not certify a damages class,
meaning damages would be determined later, on some case-by-case
basis that has yet to be fully defined.

In their case against Eastman, lawyers for residents and
businesses argue the Eastman is liable for failing to instruct
Freedom about the proper storage of Crude MCHM and not warning of
the chemical's potential dangers.  Eastman had wanted to block any
evidence about whether the Responsible Care program constituted a
set of industry standards that the company should have followed in
its handling of MCHM matters and dealings with Freedom.

Judge Copenhaver ruled that there was no "foundation to conclude
that the broad principles of Responsible Care translated into
specific practices or actions of companies that are well known and
commonly accepted within the industry."

In another ruling, Judge Copenhaver on Oct. 12 ruled with Eastman
on the company's argument that it had not violated the federal
Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, in its handling of MCHM
issues.

The TSCA issue was not scheduled to be part of the trial, because
the parties had agreed to have Judge Copenhaver rule on it as a
matter of law.  The only issue was that the plaintiffs sought a
court injunction to force Eastman to stop the TSCA violations
alleged in the lawsuit.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that Eastman violated the
law by not reporting certain information about Crude MCHM to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  A former top EPA official,
Robert Sussman, hired as an expert for the plaintiffs, had said
that if Eastman had provided EPA with more information it "may
well have led" to additional studies of the chemical and "to great
controls on environmental release at coal preparation and related
facilities, and these could have prevented the spill from
occurring."

Judge Copenhaver, though, ruled that such "conjectural or
hypothetical" arguments are exactly the sort that the U.S. Supreme
Court has dismissed as insufficient to show a legal standing to
bring suit.

"That is, the plaintiffs cannot show that it would be 'likely' as
opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be redressed
by a favorable decision," the judge wrote.  Judge  Copenhaver said
that the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs in the TSCA
part of their case -- requiring Eastman to correct its failure to
report certain MCHM information to EPA's TSCA office and begin
keeping records about adverse health effects relating to the
chemical -- would not ameliorate any future potential to exposure
to MCHM.


EMC BUILDERS: Faces "Solorzano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honorio E. Solorzano and other similarly-situated individuals v.
EMC Builders, L.L.C., Cristobal Narvaez, and Maria Fernandez, Case
No. 1:16-cv-24350-PAS (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FRESH & EASY: Judge Refuses to Enforce Class Action Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------
Shar Bahmani, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) has been steadfast in its position that
such waivers run afoul of the NLRA.  The Fifth Circuit was the
first Circuit Court to weigh in, consistently holding in a pair of
decisions in 2012 and 2014, and again in 2016 that class and
collective action waivers are permissible and enforceable.  The
Fifth Circuit rule presented a significant problem for the NLRB's
position as employers with sufficient contacts in Fifth Circuit
states could appeal an NLRB decision invalidating their
arbitration agreements to the Fifth Circuit.

However, earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit became the first
Circuit Court to agree with the NLRB's stance against class and
collective action waivers.  Soon thereafter, the Ninth Circuit
also joined the Seventh Circuit and the NLRB, thereby widening the
split on the enforceability of the waivers.

Although the issue has yet to be decided by the Third Circuit, the
momentum from the recent Seventh and Ninth Circuit decisions may
have trickled eastward to the Third Circuit.  Recently, a Delaware
bankruptcy judge refused to enforce a class action waiver in an
employee arbitration agreement because the Court determined the
waiver violated the NLRA.  Noting the issue was an issue of first
impression in the Third Circuit, Judge Brendan L. Shannon
determined "that a class-action waiver provision violates
substantive rights at the heart of the NLRA."  Notably, the Court
separately determined that the entire arbitration agreement was
unenforceable as a result of the invalid class action waiver even
though it contained an opt-out provision for employees.

The Delaware decision is a District Court decision and is not the
binding law of the Third Circuit.  However, it does serve as a
reminder of the deepening split away from the previously
unchallenged Fifth Circuit rule.  Employers are advised to review
the law of the Circuit(s) in which their employees and operations
are based.  Employers should also be aware that the decision
making split between the Circuit Courts will likely lead to review
by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.

The Delaware bankruptcy case is In re: Fresh & Easy, LLC Case No.
1:15-bk-12220 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.


GENSERVE INC: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Carter, Dean Mendolia, James Guida, Joseph Venth, Neil
Tingwall, Robert Reitz, Jr., Steve Beouch and Thomas Costanza,
individually and on behalf of the putative class members v.
Genserve, Inc., Generator Holding Corporation, Robert Fortunato,
Michael V. Ahling, and Joseph Flynn, Case No. 516354/2016 (N.Y.
Super. Ct., October 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a generator contracting business performing
maintenance, repair, servicing, and replacement duties on
commercial generators and generator components and automatic
transfer switches.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-970
      E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
              graham@peltongraham.com


HORIZON CARE: "Royer" Suit Over Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Royer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Horizon Care Services, Inc., Case No. 9:16-cv-81726-DMM (S.D.
Fla., October 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Horizon Care Services, Inc. owns and operates a business with a
principal office in Palm Beach County, Florida providing in-home
care and related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


KLEINER PERKINS: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Bumidge, Lincolnshire Fisker, LLC,
Kenneth A. Steel, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, individually and on
behalf of a class of all those similarly situated v. Keith
Daubenspeck, Peter McDonnell, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,
Ray Lane, and John Doerr, Case No. 2016-CH-13589 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
October 14, 2016), is brought on behalf of all who purchased
Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. securities through Advanced
Equities, Inc., asserting claims of common law fraud, fraudulent
concealment of material information, breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligent
misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy in connection with
purchases of Fisker Automotive Securities during the Class Period.

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Ray Lane is a venture capital
firm with its headquarters in Menlo Park, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
      Adam Prom, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
              brt@wexlerwallacc.com
              ap@wexlerwallace.com

           - and -

      Kurt B. Olsen, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 261-3553
      E-mail: ko@klafterolsen.com
              jak@klafterolsen.com
              fr@klafterolsen.com

           - and -

      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
              bpodell@bm.net

          - and -

      Nonnan M. Monhait, Esq.
      P. Bradford de Lecuw, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAJT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center
      Wilmington, DE 1980
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      Facsimile: (302) 658-7567
      E-mail: nmonhait@nngglaw.com
              bdeleeuw@nngglaw.com


LEROY MARTIN: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Unlawful Bail Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Robinson, and Michael Lewis, on behalf of themselves and a
class and subclass of similarly situated persons v. Leroy Martin
Jr., E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., Peggy Chiampas, Sandra G. Ramos, and
Adam D. Bourgeois Jr., et al., on behalf of themselves and a class
of similarly situated persons, and Thomas Dart, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2016CH13587
(Ill. Ch. Ct., October 14, 2016), arises out of the Defendants'
practice of applying Illinois' bail statute, to set a monetary
bail for pretrial arrestees without a meaningful inquiry into the
person's ability to pay and in amounts in excess of what the
person is able to pay.

Leroy Martin, Jr. is a duly elected judge of the Circuit Court of
Cook County, and the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division of
the Circuit Court of Cook County.

E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is a duly elected judge of the Circuit
Court of Cook County and the Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Peggy Chiampas is an associate judge of the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Municipal Department.

Sandra G. Ramos is a duly elected judge of the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Municipal Department.

Adam D. Bourgeois Jr. is an associate judge of the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Municipal Department.

Thomas Dart is a Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Chirag G. Badlani, Esq.
      Kate E. Schwartz, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 580-0100
      E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
              cbadlani@hsplegal.com
              kschwartz@hsplegal.com

           - and -

      Locke Bowman, Esq.
      Alexa VanBrunt, Esq.
      RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
      375 E Chicago Ave.
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (312) 503-1271
      E-mail: l-bowman@law.northwestem.edu
              a-vanbrunt@law.northwestem.edu

           - and -

      Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
      CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
      916 G Street NW, Suite 701
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 681-2409
      E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org


MARRIOTT VACATION: Responds to Racketeering Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that
Marriott Vacation Club and First American Title Co. are battling a
proposed class action lawsuit that alleges MVC's timeshare sales
are a racketeering scheme.

Marriott's attorneys with Greenberg Traurig in Orlando have filed
over 50 pages in its first round of replies to the lawsuit, which
started as a proposed class action in May.

""It is evident from these allegations that plaintiffs have
misread the statutes that they assert have been violated,"
Marriott says in a motion to dismiss the case . . ."The
allegations are without merit and the MVC Plan fully complies with
applicable law."

Marriott also seeks to have the dispute moved to a state regulator
for review.

The lawsuit takes aim at Marriott's points program, which replaced
traditional sales of timeshare weeks at specific resorts in 2010.
According to the suit, Marriott timeshare customers pay fees
associated with owning real estate -- such as closing costs and
recording fees -- but don't actually own any real estate. Despite
not actually being real estate owners, the lawsuit says, buyers
are still paying closing costs, recording fees, title policy
premiums and real estate taxes.

The suit also targets First American Title Company -- the trustee
for Marriott's land trust -- and Orange County and Orange County
Comptroller Martha Haynie.  The plaintiffs are two timeshare
buyers, Anthony and Beth Lennen, who bought a unit at Crystal
Shores in Marco Island -- but their deed was recorded in Orange
County.

Greg Crist, president of the National Timeshare Association, said
he would welcome review of the allegations by a state regulator.

First American has filed its own 27-page motion to dismiss the
case, where the title company alleges that the Lennens made a
choice to purchase title insurance, and that they signed
agreements that they couldn't sue over the timeshare program
itself.

Ms. Haynie's office also filed a motion to dismiss her office from
the case, arguing that recording a deed doesn't bestow any legal
blessing on it.

According to the lawsuit, deeds that are recorded in Orange County
for Marriott timeshares have completely meaningless codes that
only refer to contracts with Marriott, and not to actual real
property, which makes them illegal.

The lawsuit seeks to abolish Marriott's points program, which
attorneys said is unique among timeshare companies.  It also seeks
the return of fees and costs paid by buyers.

First American is represented by Orlando-based Rumberger Kirk &
Caldwell, and the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis.


METALS USA: Dec. 12 Dura-Loc Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firm of Stonebarger
Law, APC regarding Wilson v. Metals USA, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00568
(E.D. Cal.).

On July 5, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California certified a class action against Metals
USA, Inc. ("MUSA").

What is the Case About? The claim that was certified as a class
action is brought under California Commercial Code Section 2313
and alleges the Continental, Shadowline, and Wood Shake stone
coated steel roof shingles (the "Tiles") manufactured by Dura-Loc
Roofing Systems Limited ("Dura-Loc") suffer from an inherent
design defect which results in the surface coating deteriorating
well before the warranted 25-year period.

Who is Included? You are a part of this class action if you own a
home or other structure located in the State of California on
which the Dura-Loc Continental, Shadowline, and Wood Shake stone
coated steel roof shingles were installed during the period of
time beginning July 1, 1996 through May 12, 2006.

What are My Options? If you want to stay in the case, you do not
need to do anything.  If you do not want to participate in this
case or want to file your own case, you must mail a letter to MUSA
EXCLUSIONS, P.O. Box 2551, Faribault, MN, 55021-9551, stating that
you want to be excluded from Wilson, et al v. Metals USA, Inc.  Be
sure to include your name, address, and sign the letter.  Your
Request to Be Excluded Must Be Postmarked by December 12, 2016.
If you do not exclude yourself from this case, you will be legally
bound by the decisions of the Court.  An exclusion request is also
available at www.SteelRoofShingleClassAction.com

Do I Need to Hire a Lawyer? The Court has appointed Gene J.
Stonebarger and Richard D. Lambert of Stonebarger Law, APC to
represent you and the other members of the Class.  You may, but
are not required to, enter an appearance through an attorney in
this case at your own expense.

For more information, go to www.SteelRoofShingleClassAction.com,
or call (888) 228-0421, or email
info@steelroofshingleclassaction.com


MYLAN INC: Faces "Perdue" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landon W. Perdue, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc., Heather Bresch,
Robert J. Coury, Paul B. Campbell, Kenneth S. Parks, and John D.
Sheehan, Case No. 1:16-cv-08000 (S.D.N.Y., October 13, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded generic,
and specialty pharmaceuticals worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

NEW YORK, NY: DHS Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Murray, Benneth Ekwegbalu, Erik Giordano, Ashley Hamilton,
Valentyna Masyk, Jasmine Mcneill, Rosedi Morales, Wayne Neal,
Emmett Sealey, Paul Singh, and Allen Stevens, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. City of New York,
New York, Case No. 1:16-cv-08072 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees of the
Department of Homeless Services overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) is an
agency within the government of New York City that provides
services to the homeless.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
      David Ricksecker, Esq.
      Sarah M. Block, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      E-mail: info@wmlaborlaw.com

          - and -

      Hope Pordy, Esq.
      SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
      1700 Broadway Suite 2100
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 765-2100
      E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com


NEWS CORP: Judge Tosses Phone Tapping Scandal Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a US judge had thrown out a class action brought against
Rupert Murdoch, his son James and News Corp.'s recently reinstated
UK boss Rebekah Brooks over the company's phone tapping scandal.

The action filed in New York by aggrieved shareholders in 2011 had
alleged the company had engaged in securities fraud through a
scheme to "conceal the existence and extent of illegal news-
gathering practices at the News of the World and The Sun".

There's little dispute that News Corp's The Sun and News of the
World engaged in some pretty disgraceful behavior in the rush to
get yarns and have been raked over the coals for it in what Rupert
described as "the most humbling day of my life".

However, just Judge Paul Gardephe in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York put an end to the action that has
been running for five years.

The action related to a extended "class period", which means that
any shareholder who bought shares between July 2009 and July 2011
could share in the windfall.

But it all came to naught after the court upheld News Corp's
request to have the matter dismissed.

Judge Gardephe found the New York court did not have jurisdiction
to hear the claim against the company as the subsidiary
responsible for the scandal was a UK business and "nearly all the
alleged misstatements were made before the onset of the alleged
class period."


PARIS BAGUETTE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hun Park, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paris Baguette USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. BC636984 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 13, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
regular rate wages and compensation in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Paris Baguette USA, Inc. owns and operates a bakery in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Skripko Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., PC
      1323 N. Broadway, 2nd Floor
      Santa Ana, CA 92706
      Telephone: (714) 543-6200
      Facsimile: (714) 543-6140

          - and -

      Peter I. Beck, Esq
      PETER BECK, APLC
      3580 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 637-0120
      Facsimile: (213) 637-0246


PEOPLE'S BANK: Appellate Court Affirms Ruling on Litigation Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dyton, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a North
Carolina appellate court recently affirmed that a plaintiff must
pay the defendant's court costs after he turned down an offer of
judgment.

The three-year-old case began when plaintiff Joseph Gay challenged
overdraft fees incurred at People's Bank.  His lawsuit against
People's Bank was for breach of contract, breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and
unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Meanwhile, the bank argued that all the fees were authorized by
account agreements the plaintiff signed.  The business court ruled
in the bank's favor and granted it summary judgment, which was
affirmed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff must pay the defendant's litigation costs because of
Rule 68 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule
states that when a party rejects a reasonable settlement offer, it
must pay any litigation costs incurred if the eventual judgment is
less than the offer.

The plaintiff listed a number of reasons he shouldn't have to pay
the costs, but the business court rejected all of them.  Attorneys
fees are excluded, but for this case, the plaintiff will be
responsible for the costs of deposition transcripts and mediator's
fees from the court-ordered mediation.

"Usually, a class plaintiff does not worry about the costs of
litigating his or her case, because the case is handled on a
contingency fee basis by the law firm representing him or her,"
Brooks Pierce attorney Dan Smith told Legal Newsline.  "That is,
class plaintiffs don't pay for their attorneys."

People's Bank was awarded a modest judgment (less than $6,000),
but the big reward is the ruling itself, Mr. Smith said.

"For lawyers, the ruling interprets Rule 68 on a point of law that
was previously unsettled.  Plus it's different from the federal
rules of civil procedure.  From the litigants' point of view, the
ruling shows plaintiffs who aren't successful in their cases on
summary judgment are responsible for costs the defendants incur
after they make an offer of judgment," Mr. Smith said.

The decision will play a big part in litigants' thought processes
when it comes to class action cases.  Defending a class action
lawsuit can be costly, but plaintiffs aren't concerned, since
defendants typically pay for their own court costs.

Now that plaintiffs know going into a case that they might have to
pay for some of these costs, they may think twice before going
forward with a class action claim, Smith said.

"The possibility of paying the defendant's costs provides a
disincentive to bring cases that lack merit," Mr. Smith said.  "A
plaintiff that loses such a case won't 'lose nothing,' but instead
will owe the defendant the costs incurred in the litigation after
the offer of judgment."


PHOENIX ACV: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Salas, Maria Saquisili, Genaro Carbajal, Alfredo Perez, Kris
K. Rodas, Cesar Olivos, Juan James, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Phoenix ACV Construction
Services, LLC, Phoenix RMA Construction Services LLC, Dinallo
Construction Corporation, Albee Development LLC, and Michael
Leineek, Case No. 1:16-cv-08066 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing
business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
      RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 382-1600
      E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com


PROMPTIME HOME: Faces "Scott" Suit in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenia Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Promptime Home Healthcare Services, Inc. and Samuel
Asadu, Case No. 3:16-cv-02901-M (N.D. Tex., October 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Promptime Home Healthcare Services, Inc. operates a home
healthcare agency in the Northern District of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA   70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
              scott@bohrerbrady.com

           - and -

      Corinna Chandler, Esq.
      CHANDLER LAW, P.C.
      3419 Westminster #343G
      Dallas, TX 75205
      Telephone: (972) 342-8793
      Facsimile: (972) 692-5220
      E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


PSI SERVICES: "Kalbaklian" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Kalbaklian, individually and on behalf of all other
members of the general public similarly situated v. PSI Services,
LLC d/b/a PSI Examination Services and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. Be 637011 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

PSI Services, LLC offers employment and individual assessments for
business, industry and government.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN
      220 South Kenwood Street, Suite 300
      Glendale, CA 91206
      Telephone: (818) 696-2306
      Facsimile: (818) 696-2307


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Mapes, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three women
have filed a class action lawsuit against an electronics company
for allegedly manufacturing and distributing washing machines that
explode.

Suzann Moore, Michelle Soto Fielder and Melissa Thaxton filed a
complaint on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated Aug. 12 in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., citing breach of implied warranty,
negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damage from purchasing Samsung washing machines that
exploded when used.  The suit states the W400 and W500 models used
by the plaintiffs all have high-speed motors and have flawed
assembly dampers.  Because the dampers are allegedly
malfunctioning, the tub becomes unfastened during a spin cycle,
causing an explosion.

One plaintiff said in the complaint that she heard a loud crash
and the entire house shook violently.  The complaint describes the
washing machine jumping out from the wall several feet, the washer
was dislodged from the base of the machine, the metal sides were
bent and distorted, electrical wires were hanging out of the back
of the machine and damage to personal property had occurred as a
result of the explosion.

"If my wife or son were in the room when this happened, I have no
doubt that they would be in the hospital or possibly even killed,"
a plaintiff said in the complaint.

"I think the best way to get a sense for what is going on is to
take a look at photos in the complaint," Jason Lichtman, one of
the attorneys for the plaintiffs, told Legal Newsline.

The pictures included in the plaintiffs' legal filings show
several Samsung washing machines bent and broken, laying on their
sides, some with debris covering them, and damage to surrounding
personal property.

"On Sept. 28, we moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), a
preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, and the court set
a hearing on the TRO for Oct. 4," Mr. Lichtman said.

In the request for the TRO, Lichtman asks for a court order to
prevent Samsung from allegedly destroying "any more evidence." The
plaintiffs contend that Samsung has been aware of the exploding
washers since at least 2013 when one of its consumers was
physically injured during an explosion.  The complaint says the
customer's injuries required reconstructive jaw surgery and left
her permanently disabled.

The motion also argues Samsung was sued for the first time in 2014
for the exploding machines, yet instead of remedying the issue by
ceasing to sell the machines, Samsung contacted consumers who
reported the explosions, offered a replacement machine, then
picked up the defective machines and destroyed them.  The
plaintiff cites at least 25 reports of exploding machines.  It
also argues Samsung not only destroys the machines but also
continues to sell them.

The motion reads, "This is a case about washing machines that
explode. Defendants Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Samsung") have known that
their washers blow themselves apart since at least Oct. 24, 2013,
when one of their washers exploded in California, injuring a
woman.  Over the past three years, consumers report that at least
25 additional washers have exploded.  These explosions are
dangerous; they cause property damage and injury."

In the plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery, it asks the
court to permit inspection of any washing machine in Samsung's
control that has blown itself apart, for Samsung to produce
technical diagrams of the washing machines, to detail all
complaints from consumers alleging their Samsung washing machines
exploded and all documents relative to the possibility its
machines could explode.

"It's difficult to comment on all of these issues at this stage of
litigation because Samsung has not yet answered or otherwise
responded to our complaint," Mr. Lichtman said.

A representative for Samsung told Legal Newsline, "Samsung does
not comment on any pending litigation."

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek award damages to
the plaintiffs, declare that the washing machines are defective,
enjoin the defendant from selling the defective machines and
restitution.


SAUL CHEVROLET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Rivera" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Rivera, individually, and on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated v. Saul Chevrolet, Inc., Cardinale Automotive
Group of Tahoe, Inc., Cardinale Automotive Group, Volkswagen
Hyundai, Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc., Cardinale AG
Motorbike, Inc., Cardinale Nissan, Inc., Cardinale Protective
Services, Inc., Cardinaleway Nevada AG Inc., Cardinaleway Acura,
Cardinale Automotive Group-Arizona, Inc., Cardinaleway
Mazda at Peoria, Cardinaleway Mazda at Superstition Springs, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:16-cv-05966 (N.D. Cal.,
October 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a car dealership company throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIERRA AUTOCARS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexus Fraire-Gamell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sierra Autocars, Inc. and Does 1 through 20
inclusive, Case No. BC637255 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 13, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to provide meal periods without paying the
Plaintiff and class members premium wages for every day said meal
periods were not provided in violation of California Labor Code.

Sierra Autocars, Inc. is a family-owned group of car dealerships
in Monrovia, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Laura P. Birnbaum, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


SOUTH NASSAU: Faces "Foster" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. South Nassau Communities Hospital, Case No.
607085/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 13, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

South Nassau Communities Hospital operates a hospital in
Oceanside, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Female Surgeon Files Pay Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Olsen, writing for The State journal Register, reports that
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine and its group
practice of physicians unfairly pay female doctors less than their
male counterparts by wide margins, a former SIU surgeon says in a
federal lawsuit.

Dr. Sajida Ahad, 41, contends in the suit, pending in
Springfield's U.S. District Court, that SIU has consistently paid
female physicians less than their male counterparts, in violation
of state and federal anti-discrimination and equal-pay laws.

In particular, female physician associate and assistant professors
averaged $62,000 less in total annual compensation than male
physicians of similar experience levels and skills over the past
10 years, the lawsuit says.

SIU officials denied Dr. Ahad's overall allegations in court
documents filed in response to an earlier version of the suit.

Asked to comment on Oct. 13, SIU spokeswoman Karen Carlson said in
a written statement: "At the SIU School of Medicine, we value
diversity and are committed to our standards of equal employment
opportunities for all of our employees.  We will continue to
conduct all personnel activities in accordance with the letter and
spirit of applicable state and federal regulations."

Dr. Ahad's 2015 lawsuit, updated with new information and claims,
says the Springfield-based medical school isn't unique when it
comes to gender-related pay disparities, but the gaps between men
and women are larger at SIU than at many other medical schools.

SIU pays female doctors "substantially less" than most of its male
doctors, with no valid reason, Dr. Ahad's attorney, Michael Brown
of Appleton, Wisconsin, told The State Journal-Register.

"That's a problem," Mr. Brown said.

Dr. Ahad's lawsuit was filed as a potential class-action
complaint, meaning it could be expanded in coming months to
include more than 40 other female physicians among the total 250
SIU physicians if female doctors are willing to become involved.

The suit doesn't ask for a particular amount of money in damages,
but SIU could be put at risk of paying millions of dollars in
damages if Judge Sue Myerscough certifies it as a class action.

Dr. Ahad couldn't be reached for comment but said in a news
release, "I want to bring attention to this important issue, not
just for myself, but for other female physicians that have been
unlawfully underpaid."

According to a 2016 study in the Journal of the American Medical
Association/Internal Medicine, female doctors at 24 public medical
schools averaged almost $20,000 less in annual pay than male
doctors.  A 2012 JAMA study found a $30,000 difference between
female and male doctor salaries.

SIU's filing in February in response to the earlier version of the
suit, which didn't refer to the 2016 study, took issue with the
way Dr. Ahad's attorneys characterized the 2012 study.

The 2012 study, according to Dr. Ahad's lawyers, "noted that
'numerous psychological studies suggest the existence of small yet
meaningful gender biases, often unconscious, that may ultimately
influence the outcomes of women's careers, including hiring,
salaries, and promotions . . . (t)hese biases have been
demonstrated to be particularly likely to be mobilized when women
are mothers.' "

Dr. Ahad, a bariatric surgeon and laparoscopic surgery specialist
who completed a general surgery residency at Mayo Clinic, was
employed by SIU and served patients through group practice SIU
HealthCare from 2008 to 2014.  She resigned and continues to work
as a surgeon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The suit says Dr. Ahad was paid a base salary of $125,000 per year
and guaranteed total annual earnings of $250,000, including
incentive pay for the care of patients, in her first two years of
employment.

Dr. Ahad's "male replacement," an SIU doctor with similar skills
and experience who was hired after she resigned, was paid a
starting salary of $200,000, according to the suit.  The male
doctor also received a $25,000 signing bonus that Dr. Ahad never
received and was guaranteed an annual income of more than
$300,000, the suit says.

SIU provided male doctors "more opportunities" than Dr. Ahad to
earn more money by allowing them to serve more patients than her,
Dr. Ahad alleges.

The medical school "assigned Dr. Ahad far fewer surgeries" than
male surgeons had the opportunity to perform even though Dr. Ahad
and the men had "the same job and base salary classifications,"
the suit says.

Dr. Ahad was underpaid almost $110,000 between July 2011 and March
2014, the suit says.

SIU officials, in a performance evaluation, cited Dr. Ahad's
eight-week pregnancy and maternity leave in June 2011 as a
lingering reason for her "low clinical productivity," according to
the suit.

SIU was ordered to pay Dr. Ahad $223,884, plus interest, by an
administrative law judge in April after she filed a complaint with
the U.S. Department of Labor.

The administrative judge in that case said Dr. Ahad was underpaid
in comparison to her colleagues at SIU because SIU erred in
applying federal wage requirements dealing with workers from other
countries for part of the time she was employed by SIU.

Dr. Ahad is a native of Pakistan, with a visa status as a
permanent U.S. resident.

SIU is appealing the decision to the labor department's
administrative review board.  A decision from that board could
come next month, Mr. Brown said.

In Dr. Ahad's labor department case, she said her efforts to build
a surgical weight-loss program at HSHS St. John's Hospital
suffered a "major setback" when SIU restricted her access to
Medicaid patients, and when St. John's failed to adequately market
the program to the community.

The bariatric program at St. John's ended in 2014.

St. John's spokeswoman Catie Sheehan declined to comment on
Dr. Ahad's labor department case and lawsuit.


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Sued Over Improper Loan Modifications
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tycko & Zavareei LLP on Oct. 13 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit filed on October 7, 2016 alleges Specialized Loan
Servicing (SLS) improperly processed loan modification
applications for customers in California that often led to
overpayments on the loan and unjust foreclosures of the borrower's
home.

To stem the tide of defaults and foreclosures after the Great
Recession of 2007 and 2008, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB) implemented a series of guidelines designed to force
banks and mortgage servicers to process loan modification requests
quickly, accurately, and transparently.  The guidelines went into
effect in January 2014 and give homeowners the right to sue
mortgage servicers who violate them.

This class action lawsuit alleges that SLS violated the U.S.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new guidelines and failed
to bring its system for processing loan modification applications
into compliance.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that SLS,
among other things:

   (1) Failed to timely respond to loan modification applications;

   (2) Failed to inform borrowers what information was missing in
order to process their loan modification application;

   (3) Falsely told borrowers their application was missing
information that had already been provided on numerous occasions;

   (4) Denied borrowers' loan modification requests without an
appropriate explanation; and

   (5) Wrongfully threatened foreclosure while a borrower's
application was still under review.

Margarette Smith, an 88-year old homeowner and the named plaintiff
in the lawsuit, experienced all of the above behavior as she
attempted to comply with the requirements set forth by SLS in
numerous letters each month.  Despite providing SLS with all the
paperwork requested, often several times, Ms. Smith was still
denied a proper loan modification.  Consequently, the inability to
modify her mortgage means Ms. Smith may lose her home.

We are interested in hearing from consumers nationwide.
Homeowners who have applied for a home loan modification with SLS
since January 2014 and were denied a modification, or believe
their application was processed improperly, may contact Tycko &
Zavareei for a free consultation by calling Kristen Sagafi at 510-
254-6810 or Lorenzo Cellini at 202-417-3660 or by using this link.

Tycko & Zavareei LLP -- http://www.tzlegal.com-- is a bicoastal
law firm with offices in Washington, D.C. and Oakland, CA, and has
a long, successful record of litigating complex cases.  The firm
routinely handles large and complex matters throughout the
country, advocating on behalf of individuals fighting for their
civil rights, employees asking for their rightful wages, consumers
seeking redress for unfair business practices, whistleblowers
exposing fraud and corruption, and non-profit entities and
businesses facing difficult litigation.


STATE FARM: Plaintiffs Respond to Class Action Review Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Thompson, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that
plaintiffs in a class-action suit against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. responded October 10 to a request by the
insurance company for a stay to have the case reviewed.

State Farm customers brought a class-action suit against the
insurance company, originating in 2012, claiming it helped elect a
judge and block a billion-dollar award against State Farm.

The suit was certified as a class-action suit following a federal
judge's ruling September 16. State Farm asked the Illinois
Southern District of the U.S. District Court on September 30 to
review that certification.  In their response, the plaintiffs,
about 5 million State Farm customers, note "that fact discovery is
not yet completed, expert discovery has not yet started, and a
trial date has not yet been set.  Plaintiffs therefore do not
object to the Court vacating the current October 15, 2016 deadline
for meeting and conferring on specific notice plans, and
submitting a joint or competing notice plans."  However, the
plaintiffs proposed any stay of notice discovery and class notice
last no longer at least six months prior to trial.  Further, the
plaintiffs made clear they " . . . do not agree that any stay
relating to class notice should be untethered to the scheduling of
trial in this case."

The class-action suit accuses State Farm of defrauding the
plaintiffs by secretly bankrolling Lloyd Karmeier's 2004 campaign.
Further, the case alleges, State Farm " . . . created and
conducted [a] RICO enterprise . . . to enable State Farm to evade
payment of a $1.05 billion judgment affirmed in favor of
approximately 4.7 million State Farm policyholders by the Illinois
Appellate Court."


SURFSTITCH: Appoints New CFO Amid Licensing Deal Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Rogers, writing for Gold Coast Bulletin, reports that
struggling Gold Coast online action sports retailer SurfStitch has
turned to a rival troubled surf company's former finance boss and
its own recently appointed legal counsel to help it stay afloat.

The Burleigh-based retailer has appointed Nigel Phillips as its
chief financial officer and Stephanie Belton as company secretary.

They will replace Karen Birner, who held both roles at SurfStitch
before her resignation in September.

SurfStitch said Nigel Phillips has more than 20 years' finance,
operations and commercial experience in action sports sales,
marketing and distribution.

He worked with surf company Quiksilver for 18 years.

Mr. Phillips was chief financial officer for the Asia Pacific
region at Quiksilver from January 2006 until May 2016 and its
Chief Operating Officer for the Asia Pacific from late 2010.

He held both roles at Quiksilver for just over a year.

"We are very pleased to have secured someone of Nigel's experience
across both finance and operations in the action sports category,"
SurfStitch CEO Mike Sonand said.

"Coming from one of our key brand partners he understands, and is
well connected within the industry and will be a valuable addition
to the team."

New company secretary Stephanie Belton was appointed general
counsel for SurfStitch in September.

She has more than 20 years' corporate and commercial experience in
Australia and the UK including at Qantas, P&O Group, Linklaters
and Helloworld.

Mr. Phillips will take on the job from October 24.

Ms. Belton will take on the new role from November 1.

Karen Birner's resignation came after a series of blows for
SurfStitch.

She was the third senior executive, including two CEOs and its
chairman, to depart this year

The embattled company crashed to a $155 million loss which saw its
shares plummet in August to their lowest-ever level at 10.5รต.

The online retailer also revealed it is facing legal action over a
content licensing deal gone wrong and a possible $500 million
class action over market disclosures of its financial position.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Patel" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mitesh Patel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Terraform Global, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin
Truong, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, ITAU BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas, Inc., SG
Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02272, 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 (Foley
Square). The New York Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-08001-PKC to the proceeding.

The Patel case is being consolidated with MDL 2742 in re:
Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 6, 2016. The Wieland case is being
consolidated with MDL 2742. 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 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.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Terraform Global, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          Rachel Lee Gargiulo, Esq.
          Jessica L Lewis, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Tejeda-Rodriguez, Esq.
          Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
          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
                  jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
                  rachel.gargiulo@wilmerhale.com
                  tiffany.tejeda-rodriguez@wilmerhale.com
                  timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

Sunedison, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, and
Jeremy Avenier are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (SF)
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail:sbrody@sidley.com

Carlos Domenech Zornoza is represented by:

          Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
          James L. Tuxbury, Esq.
          Rhiannon A Campbell, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN SNYDER
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 378 4394
          E-mail: koconnor@hinckleyallen.com
                  jtuxbury@hinckleyallen.com
                  rcampbell@hinckleyallen.com

               - and -

          Ismail Jomo Ramsey, Esq.
          Katharine Ann Kates, Esq.
          RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP
          803 Hearst Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 548 3600
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3060
          E-mail: izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com
                  katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC
ITAU BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas,
Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. are
represented by:

          Patrick David Robbins, Esq.
          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Jonah Platt Ross, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 616 1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: probbins@shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com
                  jonah.ross@shearman.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Simon" Suit Consolidated MDL 2742
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fraser Simon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Terraform Global, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin
Truong, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, ITAU BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas, Inc., SG
Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02273, 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 (Foley
Square). The New York Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No: 1:16-cv-08003-PKC. to the proceeding.

The Simon case is being consolidated with MDL 2742 in re:
Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 6, 2016. The Wieland case is being
consolidated with MDL 2742. 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 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.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ex Kanos S Sams, II, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

Terraform Global, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          Rachel Lee Gargiulo, Esq.
          Jessica L Lewis, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Tejeda-Rodriguez, Esq.
          Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
          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
                  jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
                  rachel.gargiulo@wilmerhale.com
                  tiffany.tejeda-rodriguez@wilmerhale.com
                  timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

Sunedison, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, and
Jeremy Avenier are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (SF)
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail:sbrody@sidley.com

Carlos Domenech Zornoza is represented by:

          Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
          James L. Tuxbury, Esq.
          Rhiannon A Campbell, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN SNYDER
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 378 4394
          E-mail: koconnor@hinckleyallen.com
                  jtuxbury@hinckleyallen.com
                  rcampbell@hinckleyallen.com

               - and -

          Ismail Jomo Ramsey, Esq.
          Katharine Ann Kates, Esq.
          RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP
          803 Hearst Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 548 3600
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3060
          E-mail: izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com
                  katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC
ITAU BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas,
Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. are
represented by:

          Patrick David Robbins, Esq.
          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Jonah Platt Ross, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 616 1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: probbins@shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com
                  jonah.ross@shearman.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anton S. Badri, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Terraform Global, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin
Truong, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, ITAU BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas, Inc., SG
Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02269, 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 (Foley
Square). The New York Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-07996-PKC to the proceeding.

The Badri case is being consolidated with MDL 2742 in re:
Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 6, 2016. The Wieland case is being
consolidated with MDL 2742. 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 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.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI AND BOTTINI INC
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  sammirati@bottinilaw.com

Terraform Global, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          Rachel Lee Gargiulo, Esq.
          Jessica L Lewis, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Tejeda-Rodriguez, Esq.
          Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
          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
                  jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
                  rachel.gargiulo@wilmerhale.com
                  tiffany.tejeda-rodriguez@wilmerhale.com
                  timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

Sunedison, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, and
Jeremy Avenier are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (SF)
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail:sbrody@sidley.com

Carlos Domenech Zornoza is represented by:

          Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
          James L. Tuxbury, Esq.
          Rhiannon A Campbell, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN SNYDER
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 378 4394
          E-mail: koconnor@hinckleyallen.com
                  jtuxbury@hinckleyallen.com
                  rcampbell@hinckleyallen.com

               - and -

          Ismail Jomo Ramsey, Esq.
          Katharine Ann Kates, Esq.
          RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP
          803 Hearst Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 548 3600
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3060
          E-mail: izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com
                  katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC
ITAU BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas,
Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. are
represented by:

          Patrick David Robbins, Esq.
          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Jonah Platt Ross, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 616 1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: probbins@shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com
                  jonah.ross@shearman.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Iron Workers Mid-South Pension
Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad
Chatila, Martin Truong, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, ITAU BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas, Inc., SG
Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02270, 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 (Foley
Square). The New York Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-07997-PKC to the proceeding.

The Iron Workers case is being consolidated with MDL 2742 in re:
Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 6, 2016. The Wieland case is being
consolidated with MDL 2742. 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 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.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian James Robbins, Esq.
          George Carlos Aguilar, Esq.
          Jay Nabil Razzouk, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO, LLP
          600 "B" Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: notice@robbinsarroyo.com
                  gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com

Terraform Global, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          Rachel Lee Gargiulo, Esq.
          Jessica L Lewis, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Tejeda-Rodriguez, Esq.
          Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
          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
                  jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
                  rachel.gargiulo@wilmerhale.com
                  tiffany.tejeda-rodriguez@wilmerhale.com
                  timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

Sunedison, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, and
Jeremy Avenier are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (SF)
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail:sbrody@sidley.com

Carlos Domenech Zornoza is represented by:

          Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
          James L. Tuxbury, Esq.
          Rhiannon A Campbell, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN SNYDER
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 378 4394
          E-mail: koconnor@hinckleyallen.com
                  jtuxbury@hinckleyallen.com
                  rcampbell@hinckleyallen.com

               - and -

          Ismail Jomo Ramsey, Esq.
          Katharine Ann Kates, Esq.
          RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP
          803 Hearst Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 548 3600
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3060
          E-mail: izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com
                  katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC
ITAU BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas,
Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. are
represented by:

          Patrick David Robbins, Esq.
          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Jonah Platt Ross, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 616 1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: probbins@shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com
                  jonah.ross@shearman.com


TRIDENT ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Werner" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Yehoshua Werner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Trident Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 607974/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 14, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Trident Asset Management, LLC is a collection agency with a
principal place of business at 53 Perimeter Ctr. E, Ste. 440,
Atlanta, GA 30346.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aryeh L. Pomerantz, Esq.
      POMERANTZ & POMERANTZ, PLLC
      3 Whisper Lane
      Suffern, NY 10901
      Telephone: (845) 547-2600
      Facsimile: (845) 547-2601
      E-mail: aryeh@pom-law.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Recent Rulings to Have Major Implications
------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Keitz, writing for Real Money, reports that an ongoing
debate about Uber, and other ride-hailing companies such as Lyft,
continues: Are their drivers employees or should they at least be
considered as such?

At the moment, Uber's business model has its drivers operating as
independent contractors -- a designation that has helped the San
Francisco-based company stay profitable.

But two Uber drivers have been ruled eligible for unemployment
payments in the state of New York, the New York Times first
reported.  While the rulings by the New York State Department of
Labor apply only to the drivers' unemployment insurance claims and
"do not directly affect other drivers or extend to other
protections normally accorded employees," the Times reported, it
puts the employee vs. independent contractor issue in the
spotlight, again.

Considering that the ruling is specific to only two drivers, it
leaves open the possibility that Uber treats some of its drivers
differently, said Baruch College Professor Steven Melnik during a
phone interview with Real Money on Oct. 13.

Given that two former drivers were already determined eligible,
more might push for the same designation to become eligible for
unemployment benefits and possibly other benefits.

"Unless Uber can show that other drivers were treated differently,
which is highly unlikely, the New York State Board will have to
issue the same ruling for all other drivers,"
Mr. Melnik said.  "It certainly has major implications on Uber's
business model and for all its drivers."

Furthermore, Mr. Melnik pointed out that if drivers think they are
employees, "they should've filed that way," even before a court
ruling.  And, if they didn't, meaning they filed their taxes as
independent contractors, then they will have to correct their
taxes.

Uber has taken a staunch stance against the employee designation,
even proposing a $100 million settlement to a class action
employee misclassification suit in California and Massachusetts --
- a proposal that was rejected by a federal judge in mid-August.
But it is also facing class-action suits in Florida and Illinois,
in which drivers are looking to recover unpaid overtime wages and
work-related expenses, according to the Los Angeles Times.  So,
the ride-hailing company's fight for contractors is far from over.

Currently, Uber seems more than willing to continue to shell out
settlement money in the millions of dollars, rather than alter its
drivers-as-contractors designation.  Sure, the company has a
valuation of $68 billion -- on paper.  But New York University
Professor of Finance Aswath Damodaran pointed out in an August
blog post that Uber has a "flawed business model," one that puts
Uber's worth at $28 billion, according to his calculations.

It will likely take a court ruling to determine whether Uber
drivers are worthy of employee status.  But if that were to
happen, as Mr. Melnik told Real Money in July, Uber would be on
the hook to retroactively pay for employee-related taxes, worker's
compensation insurance and other rights -- a situation that would
certainly cost Uber more than a multi-million-dollar settlement.


UNITED STATES: Dec. 7 PTIN Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair M. Nevius, Esq., writing for Journal of Accountancy,
reports that tax practitioners across the country have started
receiving emails notifying them that if they do not opt out, they
will be included in the class of plaintiffs in a lawsuit that is
currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.  The class action lawsuit includes as plaintiffs
everyone who paid the IRS money to obtain or renew a preparer tax
identification number (PTIN) on or after Sept. 30, 2010, unless
they choose to opt out of the class.  Practitioners have until
Dec. 7, 2016, to opt out.  The plaintiffs in the case estimate
that some 700,000 to 1,200,000 preparers are affected (Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint 32 (8/7/15)).

The case, Steele, No. 1:14-cv-01523-RCL (D.D.C.), was filed by
three tax return preparers who are challenging the legality of the
IRS's PTIN fees.  The questions raised by the plaintiffs include:

Does the IRS have the legal authority to charge a fee to obtain a
PTIN?

Does the IRS have the legal authority to charge a fee to renew a
PTIN?

Are the fees imposed excessive?

The plaintiffs argue that PTIN fees are illegal for two reasons:
First, that the IRS has no authority to charge the fees because
tax return preparers receive no special benefit in return for the
fees, only an identifying number.  And, second, that even if the
IRS is authorized to charge PTIN fees, the amount it charges is
far in excess of the costs the IRS incurs to issue the PTIN. (The
IRS currently charges $50 (including a third-party vendor fee) to
obtain or renew a PTIN.)

PTIN fees were originally introduced by the IRS to fund its tax
return preparer regulation program, which was struck down by a
federal appeals court in Loving, 742 F.3d 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Although the program was struck down, the IRS continued to require
the use of PTINs and to charge a fee. (Until 2010, the use of
PTINs was not mandatory, and the IRS charged no fee to issue
them.)

The plaintiffs allege that the IRS has collected over $175 million
in PTIN fees (Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint 26
(8/7/15)).  They are seeking the recovery of either all PTIN fees
paid or the excessive portion of the PTIN fees.

The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on Feb. 9, 2016.  Lawyers representing
the plaintiffs are now contacting members of the class (return
preparers who have paid to obtain and/or renew a PTIN) notifying
them of the suit and that if they want to opt out of the class,
they must do so by Dec. 7.

The notice tells recipients that only preparers who remain in the
class will have the possibility of receiving money or benefits
from the class action lawsuit.  If the plaintiffs prevail in the
lawsuit (or settle) and obtain money or benefits as a result,
class members will be notified of how to apply for their share. By
participating in the class, practitioners are agreeing to pay
class counsel and co-counsel up to 30% of any recovery obtained in
the lawsuit.

However, the notice warns, class members who do not opt out give
up the right to sue the IRS on their own behalf about the same
legal claims that are the subject of the suit -- regardless of
whether the plaintiffs ultimately win or lose the class action
suit.

The notice contains instructions on how potential class members
can opt out of the lawsuit, which involves sending a letter with
specified information in it to the lawsuit's administrator by Dec.
7.

The AICPA is not involved in this lawsuit and has no position
regarding the suit.


UNITEDHEALTH: Artificially Rises Copayment Amounts, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Stevens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United Healthcare Services,
Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Alabama, Inc., and OptumRX, Inc., Case
No. 0:16-cv-03496-ADM-SER (D. Minn., October 14, 2016), is an
action for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies
resulting from the Defendants' common fraudulent and deceptive
pricing scheme to artificially inflate prescription copayment
amounts causing consumers to pay more than they otherwise would on
purchases of medically necessary, covered prescription drugs.

The Defendants own and operate a health insurance company with its
principal place of business located at 9900 Bren Road East,
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

           - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, 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: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

           - and -

      Erin Green Comite, 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: ecomite@scott-scott.com

           - and -

      E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
      Telephone: (205) 908-4906
      Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

           - and -

      Nicholas A. Palerino, Esq.
      P.O. Box 904
      Opelika, AL 36803
      Telephone: (334) 750-7583
      E-mail: Nickpalerino@gmail.com

           - and -

      Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
      LEMMON LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 904 15058 River Road
      Hahnville, LA 70057
      Telephone: (985) 783-6789
      Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
      E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com


VIGO COUNTY, IN: Inmate Files Class Action Over Jail Crowding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Trigg, writing for Tribune-Star, reports that claiming
chronic overcrowding and exposure to disease, a new lawsuit on
behalf of Vigo County Jail inmates has been filed in federal
court.

Sheriff Greg Ewing is named as a defendant, as are three Vigo
County commissioners and seven county council members in the
class-action complaint entered on Oct. 13 in the Terre Haute
Division of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

Indianapolis attorney Michael Sutherlin filed the action on behalf
of inmate Jauston Huerta and all current and future inmates of the
jail, claiming the jail population regularly exceeds a 268-inmate
cap set in 2002 to settle another class-action complaint regarding
overcrowding and conditions.

This lawsuit asks the court to enter a preliminary injunction
prohibiting county officials from continuing what are alleged to
be overcrowded and unsanitary situations in the jail and seeks to
make the county appropriate funds to repair the current jail or
build a new jail.

Mr. Huerta's individual allegations are that he was injured while
sleeping on the floor as the fifth man housed in a four-person
cell.  An inmate on a top bunk fell onto Huerta, causing multiple
injuries to Mr. Huerta on Sept. 15, according to the lawsuit.

The suit also states that the policy to transfer inmates to other
facilities due to lack of bed space creates undue hardship for
those inmates because they are placed in jails up to 229 miles
away from Vigo County.  Inmates have difficulty meeting in person
with their attorneys due to the distance, the suit claims.

The action also claims that inmates are deprived their rights to
meet privately and confidentially with their attorneys due to the
video conferencing the jail provides to various Vigo superior
courts.

Other allegations include substandard inmate classification and
segregation; failure to provide adequate medical care, isolation
and treatment of illnesses; inadequate recreation space and time
as required by law; lack of educational programs; and denial of
psychiatric and mental health services.

Attempts to reach Sheriff Ewing via phone, text message and email
were not immediately successful on Oct. 13.

County Commissioner Jon Marvel -- a former two-term sheriff who
preceded Ewing in office -- was contacted and said he was unaware
of the new federal lawsuit.

County officials have been working with the American Civil
Liberties Union and attorney Ken Faulk to resolve the jail
overcrowding issues, Mr. Marvel said.

The county has already hired an architect and construction manager
to move the jail project forward.  The next step is for the county
council to find a way to fund the project, he said.

In 2000, a class action complaint was filed against Vigo County
officials alleging overcrowding and unsanitary conditions in the
jail.  A contract was entered in 2002 to resolve that federal
lawsuit.  The ACLU filed a breach of contract complaint in 2013
due to ongoing overcrowding.

In the current suit, Mr. Sutherlin contends the county has taken
"minor steps and still has not resolved the size of the jail to be
built, the location of the jail to be build, the funding process
necessary, and to address adequate funds for adequate staffing for
a jail with 650 beds."

The current jail was originally constructed in 1981, then expanded
in 2002.

County officials have up to 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FCRA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jana P. Grimm, Esq. -- jana.grimm@steptoe-johnson.com -- of
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that if you set goals late last year or early this year
for workplace compliance to be completed in 2016 and have not yet
met your goals, now is the time to revisit them.  It is critical
to allocate time and energy now to review your policies and
achieve compliance with various statutes including the National
Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as the repercussions to employers
for failing to do so are proving to be very costly.  As was
predicted for 2016, the trend of filing class actions for failure
to comply with the requirements of the FCRA has and continues to
grow.

When an employer uses a third party consumer reporting agency to
conduct a background check on an applicant, the FCRA requires
certain specific notices to be given to the applicant concerning
his/her rights and requires the employer to provide such notices.
These notices are designed to make the employee aware of the
background check as a part of the application process, provide
information on the consumer reporting agency to be used, provide a
copy of the consumer report to the applicant, and allow
opportunity for the applicant to respond to the consumer report
before an employment decision is made.  Failure to have a written
policy in place regarding these requirements exposes the employer
to liability; and in fact, many of the actions that have been
filed could have been prevented if such a policy had been
implemented and enforced in the workplace.

Recently, embattled Uber Technologies, Inc. tentatively settled a
pending federal court case for the sum of $7.5 million to resolve
class actions alleging that Uber violated the FCRA by using credit
reports during background checks to deny employment without
properly notifying the applicant or obtaining the applicant's
authorization.  The case filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California in November 2014 also
alleged that the company failed to provide the required pre-
adverse action notices and a reasonable opportunity to dispute the
information before denying applications to drive for the company.
The lead plaintiff alleged that he did not receive a copy of his
consumer report and his rights under the FCRA.  As part of the
settlement, Uber retains the right to pursue further appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but should it lose, withdraw, or
the appeal be rendered moot, the settlement figure climbs to $9
million dollars.  The settlement is awaiting approval by the
Court.

Similarly, a proposed nationwide class of Waffle House job
applicants has asked a Florida court for class certification in
its pending lawsuit alleging that the company violated the FCRA.
The allegations again surround the failure to give proper notices
to the applicants as required by the statute.  In this case, the
Plaintiff had worked at various Waffle House restaurants without
incident but was denied a job based on a background check when he
re-applied at a Waffle House in Florida in 2014.  The background
check performed by a third party, also a defendant in the lawsuit,
indicated a history of criminal convictions.  Plaintiff alleges
that he was not made aware of the background check and was not
given the necessary notices as mandated by the FCRA.  As with the
Uber case, the lead plaintiff alleges that he did not receive a
copy of his report or information about the third party consumer
reporting agency used.  The Florida court recently denied Waffle
House's motion to dismiss the action against it.  A motion to
certify the class remains outstanding, but if approved, the class
could include thousands of individuals classified into various
subgroups.

Based on the above cases and others like them, the best employment
practice for any employer would be to implement a written,
detailed background check policy that notifies all potential
applicants that the company uses a pre-employment background check
as part of its employment procedures and contracts with an outside
agency to perform the background checks.  The policy should detail
the procedure for the background investigation, including the
notices that will be provided to allow the applicant the
opportunity to contest or refute the information disclosed by the
background check and the reasons for not hiring if a decision is
made based upon the results of the background check.
Confidentiality of the process should also be disclosed in such a
policy.


WELLS FARGO: Fired Workers Allege Retaliation in Account Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Wallace, writing for Marketplace, reports that
CEO John Stumpf's resignation, announced on Oct. 12, doesn't come
close to ending the troubles at Wells Fargo.  The bank is still
the subject of criminal probes and boycotts.  It's also facing at
least two class-action lawsuits from workers who say they were
fired, not for participating in the fake account scandal, but for
refusing to participate.

When Claudia Ponce de Leon started working for Wells Fargo in
2000, she was 22, and she was good at her job: She advanced from a
teller, to a banker, to assistant manager and then manager, moving
through several branches.  By 2011, she was managing a branch in
Pomona, California.  Daily sales quotas had been in place for
quite awhile, but they varied in intensity based on the region and
the season.  At this new branch, she noticed one of her staff
tricking customers to make them think they were required to open
new accounts, a tactic known as "gaming," which is forbidden by
Wells Fargo's ethics policy.

Ms. Ponce de Leon said she reported the person to her managers,
human resources and the ethics hotline.

"I thought I was doing the right thing," she said.  But within a
month she was fired for reasons she said were made up.  She was
accused of physically striking another employee, something she
said she would never do.

Since then, lots of stories have come out alleging this kind of
retaliation against workers who reported those who were gaming and
opening fake accounts.  Ms. Ponce de Leon is not surprised by
that.

"A lot of people knew, but they turned the other way because at
the end of the day, everyone gets an incentive," she said.

Those incentives were key: Wells Fargo doesn't deny that bankers
and their managers were rewarded for high sales numbers, and
former CEO John Stumpf touted the numbers to investors even as
Wells Fargo was conducting its own investigation into thousands of
workers who participated in the scam.

Attorney Jonathan Delshad recently filed a class action lawsuit in
California and a federal suit, both on behalf of employees who
said they were fired after refusing to cheat to meet quotas.  Many
said the people who did cheat were kept on or even promoted.

"Over a thousand former employees have contacted me," he said.
"Each one of their stories is pretty much cookie-cutter the same."

These stories fly directly in the face of what Wells Fargo has
said, which is that it fired anyone involved in cheating, end of
story.  The company has now stopped using individual sales goals,
apologized to its customers and in a statement said it doesn't
tolerate retaliation of any kind.  The company has declined
multiple requests for interviews with Marketplace.

Anastasia Christman with the National Employment Law Project said
the bankers who were subjected to this pressure-cooker environment
were vulnerable.

"They tend to be very low-paid," she said.  In a study of
low-level bank workers and sales tactics, she also found the
workers are disproportionately women and people of color.

Ms. Ponce de Leon said after Wells Fargo fired her, she lost her
home, her savings and was out of work for two years; now she's 39
and basically starting over.  After she was fired, she filed a
complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
which the federal agency never seems to have investigated. But
since the federal fine was levied against Wells Fargo in September
and two rough congressional hearings for John Stumpf, she said,
OSHA has proposed setting up mediation between her and Wells
Fargo. Marketplace reached out to OSHA and hasn't heard back.

Since all this attention has been on Wells Fargo, Ponce de Leon
said one other thing has gotten better.

"Finally, you know, people believe me," she said.  She lost close
friends when she lost her job at Wells Fargo, after putting nearly
12 years into the company.  "Just having the truth come out, more
than anything, is just a relief."


WEST VIRGINIA PAVING: Plaintiff's List in Asphalt Cases Growing
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetroNews reports that one of the attorneys leading a lawsuit
against West Virginia Paving claims the asphalt supplier has
manipulated the market to insure it gets the bulk of all paving
jobs in West Virginia.

Mike Hissam -- mhissam@baileyglasser.com -- attorney with Bailey
and Glasser in Charleston, says there is ample evidence the
company systematically stamped out competition.

"The companies we have sued have gained control of at least 15
asphalt plants in West Virginia that once competed against each
other," Mr. Hissam said in an appearance on "580 Live" on
MetroNews affiliate WCHS.

The firm filed four class action lawsuits on behalf of four West
Virginia cities, but the plaintiff's list is growing.

"It is important people realize this is not just the city of
Charleston, Bluefield, Beckley and Parkersburg suing for damages
to them," he said.  "They're stepping up, putting their foot
forward and saying we're suing on behalf of all West Virginians
affected, that includes individuals and small businesses."

Mr. Hissam alleged anybody who purchased asphalt from West
Virginia Paving from 2006 until the present is potentially harmed
by increased prices brought on by a lack of competition.

The overall parent company is Ireland based Old Castle Materials
which has worldwide holdings in aggregates, concrete, and asphalt.
Here in the United States the company operates with a host of
subsidiary companies.  Those included in the lawsuit are West
Virginia Paving and Southern West Virginia Paving, which has
stifled any potential competition through aggressive growth
according to Mr. Hissam.

"If the defendants and related entities control the supply of
aggregate which you need to make asphalt, they can jack up the
price and make it uneconomical for you to do your work," he
explained.  "If you have a partner they can come in and buy out
your partner for a ridiculous amount of money."

Mr. Hissam added there are also cases of new out-of-state
companies who have opened brand new asphalt plants in the Kanawha
Valley only to be immediately bought out by West Virginia Paving
and the brand new plant immediately dismantled.   The suit further
alleges the company has created a way to skirt the competitive bid
requirements for public paving jobs.

"They submitted bids aimed at tricking Charleston into believing
they were entertaining a competitive option, in reality the city
was dealing with one monopolous pretending to be two companies,"
Mr. Hissam explained.  "Almost mockingly, the bids were within one
dollar of each other."

The suit's class action status allows for more plaintiffs and
since the news hit, Mr. Hissam claimed more companies who have
experienced problems with the alleged monopoly have reached out to
them.  He would not indicate if the state of West Virginia and the
Attorney General might also be considering joining the suit.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim the practice has driven up the
cost of paving in West Virginia by 40 percent.  The suit used
eastern Kentucky's paving costs as the comparison, but because of
the nature of hot asphalt mix buying asphalt from Kentucky and
transporting it to West Virginia is not a competitive alternative.

West Virginia Paving has not commented on the suit when contacted
by MetroNews.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Averts Class Action Over Retiree Benefit Cuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Weyerhaeuser Co., one of the world's largest private owners of
timberland, dodged a proposed class action by retirees alleging
the company illegally terminated their vested lifetime health-care
benefits (Kepner v. Weyerhaeuser Co., D. Or., No. 6:16-cv-01040-
AA, 10/10/16).

The retirees failed to identify language in the plan documents
that "clearly and expressly" manifested an intent to vest health-
care benefits for life, Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon said in her Oct. 10 opinion. They
therefore failed to state a claim for vested lifetime benefits
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
Judge Aiken concluded.

Lifetime health-care coverage for retirees has been a hot issue
for years, and activity has picked up recently with retirees suing
a number of companies this year, including Honeywell International
Inc. and Raytheon Co. Federal courts, however, have been ruling
against retirees.  In March, a federal judge in Pennsylvania held
that Johnson Controls Inc. retirees weren't entitled to unlimited
lifetime health-care benefits.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit reached a similar ruling against Moen Inc. retirees.
A petition for review by Moen retirees is pending at the U.S.
Supreme Court.

At issue in the Weyerhaeuser case was the language of a 1979
summary plan description, which described the health-care coverage
then available to company retirees.  The SPD was amended over the
years and in 2015, the company unilaterally terminated some
contributions to the plan.

'Clear and Express' Language

In dismissing the retirees' lawsuit, Judge Aiken said that the
1979 SPD failed to meet the standard for contractual vesting.  The
SPD didn't include a promise for vested lifetime health-care
benefits, she said.

The court followed the reasoning adopted by the Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth and Ninth circuits that retirees must point to "clear
and express language" in plan documents to state a claim for
contractually vested benefits.  The First, Second and Seventh
circuits have held otherwise, reasoning that the lack of explicit
language isn't determinative at the summary judgment stage.

Aiken rejected the retirees' argument that the "clear and express"
rule created a presumption against vesting and was irreconcilable
with "ordinary principles of contract interpretation" and the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S.
Ct. 926 (U.S. 2015).

The clear-and-express rule requires a clear manifestation of the
parties' intent to vest benefits for life, a requirement
consistent with Tackett, the judge said.

Weyerhaeuser didn't intend to promise vested lifetime benefits.  A
clause giving employees the option to continue coverage for an
indefinite period can't reasonably be interpreted to vest
employees with irrevocable lifetime benefits, Judge Aiken
concluded.

A Weyerhaeuser spokesman declined to comment.  Counsel for the
class didn't immediately reply to Bloomberg BNA's request for
comment.

Haglund Kelley LLP represented the proposed class.  Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP and Arnold Gallagher Saydack Percell Roberts & Potter
PC represented Weyerhaeuser.


* Direct-Mail More Effective in Sending Class Action Notices
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Zola of JND Legal Administration, in an article for Law360,
reports that class action notice has long followed a basic tenet:
when a complete list of class members exists, sending notice via
first-class mail is the gold standard.

But in many class actions, such lists are simply not available. In
those cases, mostly brought on behalf of consumers, settlement
administrators commonly turn to indirect outreach via media
channels, including magazine, newspaper and internet ads, with a
summary of the notice and instructions to find more information.

Sure, a cadre of experts will testify that indirect notice
provides sufficient due process.  However, it doesn't take an
expert to see that a direct-mail program, which is sent to
identifiable class members, is more targeted and effective than a
media campaign that may, by design, miss one (or more) of every
five class members.

Going back decades, before an industry of notice experts began
opining on the merits of a program with 70 percent "reach" versus
one with 80 percent, securities practitioners essentially built
the foundation for issuing notice in a securities class action --
one that remains the tried and true method today.  This process
has been upheld by courts in thousands of cases, despite the fact
that class member lists are not directly available in a securities
case.  While little has changed in the notice blueprint, practical
refinement over the years has been necessary.

Resourceful professionals drive consistent innovation and
refinement of time-tested methods, leveraging external sources and
alternative strategies as part of a systematic approach to
notification.

Securities class action settlements -- with their complexities and
challenges -- provide the ideal illustration of an industry
solving a problem through practical application of available
resources.  The playbook is quite simple.  Upon settlement, a
defendant company provides an administration firm with the
transfer agent list; that is, the names of people and entities who
purchased the company's stock directly from the company. This, of
course, only gets at a small subset of the class, as most people
do not buy stock directly from a company; rather, they buy stock
through their broker.  In addition to mailing notice to those
direct purchasers on the transfer agent list, class action
administration firms also mail to the brokerage community and, in
turn, ask those brokers to provide names of their clients or
customers who purchased the stock during the time period in
question.  The administrators then mail potential class members
found in these many lists provided by various brokerage firms.  In
theory, it is a rather foolproof method.

In practice? Not quite.  The main reason for this is the incentive
level of the brokerage firms; in short, they don't always have an
incentive to comply and even when brokers comply, there is an
inherent time lag that can jeopardize potentially tight timelines.

When these challenges coalesce and leave class members in the
dark, counsel, administrators and class members alike face
significant consequences.

Perils of Inadequate Notice

Unfortunately, most notification issues come to light when class
members complain to courts that they did not receive timely
notice.  Resolving their concerns requires counsel to go through
the embarrassing process of asking for court assistance to fix the
shortcomings.  They must negotiate supplemental notices, file
additional briefings to get them approved, and oversee more rounds
of publication and mailings by the administrator. In some cases,
fully approved settlements must be re-opened to accommodate extra
class members.

For class members, the associated costs further reduce settlement
funds, and delay final distribution and receipt of recovery
monies.  Counsel may suffer credibility hits with judges, not
receive compensation for their additional legal work or be
compelled to pay the extra costs themselves; meanwhile, extending
final approval delays their fee awards and expense reimbursement.

In one instance this year, more than a half dozen class members
and their counsel complained to the court that the settlement
administrator had mailed them notices at or after the claim filing
date.  Acknowledging "issues with regard to the timing of the
notice provided to class members," the court vacated the fairness
hearing, extended objection and claim filing deadlines by two
months, and set a new approval hearing three months later than the
first.

In a similar instance in 2013, class members didn't receive timely
notices due to the defendant's transfer agent giving the
administrator "an incorrect list" of record shareholders and
"certain brokerage firms" providing beneficiary lists too late for
the claims administrator to mail notices in time.  The court
vacated the fairness hearing, ordered republication of a summary
notice and mailing of amended notices, required further briefing
from counsel, and postponed final approval for three months.

No Incentives for Brokers

As these cases demonstrate, many of the problems with notice in
securities cases result from cooperation issues from the brokerage
community.  This isn't surprising because, in large part, the
entirety of the process is relying on the diligence of brokerage
firms who, at best, have nothing at stake and, at worst, see
several disincentives.

First, a broker may not want to remind his or her current client
about a stock that lost money; and they have no real incentive to
provide extra services to former clients.  Moreover, the payment
that brokerage firms receive for doing the research required is
not substantial. Based on the language of most preliminary
approval orders, the brokers are to be reimbursed only their
reasonable out of pocket costs; in fact, claims administrators
have done a good job cracking down on the once excessive costs
that brokers tried to recoup.

Even where brokerage firms are determined to play their part in
the process, timing can become another issue.  Sometimes firms
need to research multiple CUSIPS and search their databases for
tens of thousands of names.

Complying is one thing.  Complying on time is another issue, and
just as problematic.  The administration firm handling the case
needs enough time to receive the names, enter them in their own
database and put them in the mail stream.

Strategies to Fill the Gap

What tools are available to lawyers and administrators to ensure
notice doesn't just comply with due process, but is actually
effective?

First, it is important that the mailing list to brokers and other
nominees is as robust and current as possible.  The job of
creating those lists has fallen to administration firms, but
companies that have been in business for many years may have lists
that are stale.  Not only should an administrator update its list
regularly, it should engage outside experts and consultants to
audit the list.

In many large securities class action settlements, a process audit
is built into the settlement agreement.  But that audit never
takes into account the notice efforts, just the claims processing
efforts.  It is the administrator's responsibility to engage an
outside firm to audit and make sure the initial list is robust,
complete, accurate and current.

Second, administrators should rely on other external resources.
One of the best is the network of third-party claims filers.  When
this market segment started some 20 years ago, the companies
attracted suspicion for their high fees -- as much as 30 percent
of each claimant's recovery -- and their unproven value.  Now,
with some 50 third-party claims filers across the country,
competition has reduced fees and expanded the companies' services
to include portfolio monitoring and more.  Even if a potential
client has no interest in using one of these firms, their
existence alone helps administrators by making it more likely that
a client will see the notice.

Third, an administrator should consider and/or recommend
instituting follow-up procedures to ensure that brokers are on
notice that they need to comply in a timely manner.  This could
include sending out reminder postcards to unresponsive brokerage
firms and other nominees, or simply conducting telephone outreach
to make sure firms are aware of important deadlines in the case.
In addition, it is important for an administrator to perform
rolling mailings as they receive data from nominees.

Some administrators, in the interest of saving money, will
aggregate names from several different nominees and then do one
mailing en masse weeks or longer after the initial mailing.
However, this increases the risk of late mailings.  Even if class
members receive the mailing on time, it may be very close to the
opt-out deadline, giving them very little opportunity to weigh
their decision.

Counsel need to do their part too.  In crafting a timeline, it is
imperative to understand that the first notice mailing is not the
real trigger date, as all that will do is start the process in
motion.  A more realistic -- and ultimately effective -- timeline
takes into account the inherent multistep process, including a
back and forth with the brokerage community.

Overall, effective class action administrators employ a full
spectrum of notice strategies to supplement notification methods
and increase the amount and precision of direct mail notification.
By better understanding the realities of the process, counsel and
their administrators can minimize notice problems and the
resulting disruptions to ensure an orderly settlement
administration.


* Opt-Out Clauses May Help Firms Enforce Arbitration Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lepore, Esq. -- christopher.lepore@akerman.com -- of
Akerman LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that ironically,
giving employees the right to decline to resolve their employment
claims in binding arbitration may actually help employers enforce
arbitration agreements in some parts of the country.

Agreements compelling employees to arbitrate their employment
claims on an individual basis -- and waive class action claims
(and similar collective action claims like those brought under the
federal wage and hour laws) -- were generally upheld until recent
challenges under the National Labor Relations Act.  Now, there is
a split among the federal appellate courts.  In particular, the
Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have said employers
cannot require employees to waive their right to bring class and
collective actions because the NLRA provides employees with a
substantive right to bring class and collective actions and does
not conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act. Several other
federal appellate circuits (the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits)
have rejected that position and maintained arbitration agreements
with class and collective action waivers are enforceable.

A recent appellate case out of the Ninth Circuit may pave the way
for employers trying to navigate this tricky terrain.  In that
case, the Court rejected a challenge by Uber drivers to an
arbitration provision which waived their right to bring class or
collective claims, but permitted them to opt out of arbitration.
The Court said any challenge under the NLRA would fail because
"the option to opt-out meant that Uber drivers were not required
'to accept a class-action waiver as a condition of employment,'
and thus there was 'no basis for concluding that [Uber] coerced
[Plaintiffs] into waiving [their] right to file a class action' in
violation of the NLRA."

In light of this case, employers in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits
should consider revising arbitration agreements with class and
collective waivers to include opt-out clauses.  Notably, however,
opt-out clauses should typically: (a) clearly inform employees of
their right to opt out of arbitration; and (b) require employees
to affirmatively notify their employer, in writing, of their
desire to opt out of arbitration within a specified time period
after executing an employment agreement.  Of course, before
adopting opt-out provisions in their arbitration agreements,
employers should carefully weigh the risk that employees will, in
fact, choose to opt out of arbitration against the possibility
that arbitration clauses with class and collective waivers might
be rendered entirely unenforceable.


* Senate Mulls Passage of CREATES Act Amid CFPB Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Colangelo, writing for Morning Consult, reports that one of
the troubling aspects of the current administration is its
wholehearted embrace of regulatory and legislative approaches that
promote private litigation as a means to a public policy end.
Usually framed as attempts to make corporations more accountable
to consumers, these mostly hurt consumers by increasing prices and
hampering innovation.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this flawed approach is the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's intention to prohibit
arbitration clauses on credit card contracts.  These clauses in
credit card contracts state that consumers must resolve contract
disputes through arbitration rather than litigation. The CFPB
wants to prohibit these agreements because it claims that allowing
consumers only this form of redress gives credit card companies
the upper hand.

While there is an honest and admirable desire to give consumers
access to the best legal recourse in all situations, the current
"best alternative" to arbitration clauses are class-action
lawsuits, which contrary to popular belief do not lead to great
rewards for consumers. According to one study, "in five of six
cases where settlement distribution data was actually available,
the percentage of class members who actually got money ranged from
a high of 12% down to a low of 0.000006%." Additionally, a
Mercatus Center report shows that, contrary to the CFPB's data,
"for many and perhaps most class actions fewer [sic] than 10% of
the class actually receive compensation." Arbitration is also much
faster, taking only several months, as opposed to the years of a
typical class-action suit.

The real beneficiary of the CFPB's proposal, which will likely go
into effect next year, would be class-action attorneys, who are in
line to earn millions of dollars unavailable to them through
arbitration hearings -- while class members themselves receive
very little.

The CFPB is not alone in seeking to open the Pandora's box of
litigation.  In a supposed attempt to improve affordability of
certain prescription drugs, the Senate is considering passage of
the CREATES Act.  The bill's bi-partisan sponsors claim it would
keep the cost of prescription drugs down by making it easier for a
certain class of generics to reach the market. But in fact, the
bill would really be a wonder drug for trial attorneys, who stand
to gain considerably from the opportunities for litigation that
the bill creates.

Under current law, a company seeking to manufacture a generic
version of a marketed drug that is in a high risk category has to
apply to the company owning the patent for that drug so that they
can run tests showing the generic version is bioequivalent to the
original.  To speed this process, the CREATES Act would grant
generic manufacturers the ability to sue a brand-name company if
it fails to provide "sufficient quantities of the covered product
on commercially reasonable, market-based terms" within 31 days of
receiving either the FDA's authorization or the company's request.
While the intent of the legislation is to help "fast track"
potentially lower cost generic drugs to market, in the end it will
only serve to put lawyers' interests above that of consumers and
consumer safety.

First, the CREATES Act would compromise consumer safety.  Certain
drugs used to treat potentially life-threatening conditions are so
potent, they pose serious health risks to others if not used
properly.  In the case of these kinds of drugs, some of which can
only be used in a hospital or other controlled medical settings,
the FDA requires strict protocols known as Risk Evaluation &
Mitigation Strategies with Elements to Assure Safe Use (REMS with
ETASU).  Currently, if a generic manufacturer seeks to produce a
prescription subject to these guidelines, it must first
demonstrate that they can meet these required high safety
standards.  But under the CREATES Act, the rush to produce and get
generic drugs to market faster could potentially lead, in some
cases, to important safeguards being overlooked for the sake of
expediency.

In September, in a letter to Congress, the Patients Alliance for
Drug Safety Protections, a patient advocacy group, expressed
concern that under the CREATES Act, the "FDA would be precluded
from investigating whether the generic developer has the safety
track record and capability to follow a rigorous risk management
system," which in turn "could put patients at risk of significant
harm."

Second, the notion that this approach would lower costs is
suspect.  The companies behind these innovative pharmaceuticals
spend significant time and financial resources to make sure they
are effective and safe.  If the serious threat of litigation
doesn't deter these companies from developing the drugs
completely, the litigation and fines would raise the cost of
production -- and therefore the price consumers pay.

Finally, the act could in the long-term discourage companies from
investing in cutting-edge innovation because the monetary damages
posed by legal threats would outweigh the funding cost associated
with research, development, and production.  According to the
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, the cost to bring
a new drug to market in 2016 was $2.6 Billion, up over 300% from
2003.

Whether we are talking financial services or, more importantly,
healthcare, it is difficult enough for public policy to strike the
right balance between rewarding innovation and maximizing
competition.  However, handing a giant litigation club to one side
of that careful balance does not help consumers in the long run.


* U.S. FDA Aims to Redefine "Healthy" Label Amid Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Chandler, writing for The Atlantic, reports that in late
September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration invited Americans
to help redefine "healthy," a perpetually squishy term that has
applied to Pop-Tarts for years, but almonds as of only two weeks
ago.

According to the agency, the aim of the revision is two-fold: to
help consumers and to pressure food companies to produce more
nutritious fare.  "By updating the definition, we hope more
companies will use the 'healthy' claim as the basis for new
product innovation and reformulation, providing consumers with a
greater variety of 'healthy' choices in the marketplace,"
Dr. Douglas Balentine wrote on the FDA's blog.

In the meantime, the subjectiveness of "healthy" and similar
claims, such as "natural," remain a matter of intense controversy,
animated by two of America's most cherished pastimes: advertising
and class-action lawsuits.  Days before the FDA asked the public
to weigh in on "healthy," Nature Valley, the General Mills-owned
granola-bar maker, became the target of three class-action
lawsuits over its products, which have labels that claim that they
are made with "100% natural whole grain oats," but are said to
contain trace amounts of pesticides. (Frustratingly for Nature
Valley's legal team, the "100% natural whole grain oats" phrasing
was actually the replacement copy for "100% natural," for which
the company was sued in 2012 after it was determined that its
products contain genetically modified and processed ingredients.)

Nature Valley's woes are hardly an anomaly.  Naked Juice, which is
owned by PepsiCo, was sued by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, a consumer-advocacy group, which maintains that the
purveyor of sugary, bottled juice exaggerates health claims in its
labeling and advertising.  "PepsiCo misleadingly markets Naked
Juices as predominantly containing high-value ingredients such as
acai berry, blueberries, kale, and mango, when in fact the
predominant ingredient in the product line is usually cheap,
nutrient-poor apple juice," reads the lawsuit.  Like Nature
Valley, Naked Juice faced another lawsuit (which it then settled)
over its use of the term "all natural" three years ago after some
accused the company of using GMOs in its products.

These cases are representative of a burgeoning legal battle
against food companies whose products, generally speaking, don't
cause serious harm to consumers.  Or as Ted Craig, a lawyer who
specializes in consumer class actions, told Quartz's Deena Shanker
after the snack-bar maker KIND faced three class-action lawsuits
over its use of the word "healthy" last year, these suits appear
to be "solely for purposes of recovering money damages and not in
the name of protecting consumers."

The breadth of the roster of food companies and conglomerates that
have faced labeling lawsuits in recent years is more dizzying than
any sugar (or pesticide) high.  It includes Kraft Heinz, Dr.
Pepper Snapple Group, Campbell Soup, Trader Joe's, Ben & Jerry's,
Kashi, and Skinnygirl. Earlier this year, Quaker Oats was sued
over its instant-oatmeal line, the packaging of which features the
words "maple sugar" and a picture of maple syrup, even though it
doesn't contain actual maple syrup.  Perhaps the most infamous
case in this genre was one in which a federal judge dismissed a
suit that centered on the fact that Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Berries
are not real fruit.

While some may dismiss these legal efforts as frivolous, the
question of whether a product is as "healthy" or "natural" as
promised dovetails with a broader movement about what's actually
in the items on American grocery shelves. Take, for example, the
debate over GMO labeling, the proponents of which argue is simply
a way for consumers to know what they're getting in their food,
despite the scientific consensus arguing that GMOs don't pose any
health risks.  "What's happening here is more and more people are
concerned about what they're putting in their bodies, concerned
about processed foods and the things added to them,"
Michael Moss, a reporter covering the food industry, told The
Chicago Tribune in May.  Of the lawsuits, he added, "I love it
that consumer agitation can cause companies to respond without
government intervention."

This era of ambiguity and federal reluctance may be (very slowly)
nearing its end.  Earlier this year, the FDA ended a public-
comment period over the term "natural" and may rule on the term in
the coming months, which is good news for U.S. consumers.
"Americans spend more than $40 billion a year on cereals, breads,
yogurts, beverages, and other foods identified as 'all natural,'"
noted Anahad O'Connor in The New York Times in May.  "Surveys show
that consumers seek out the 'all natural' label because they
believe -- wrongly -- that it means the food was produced without
genetically modified organisms, hormones, pesticides and
artificial ingredients."

Similarly, behind the FDA's initiative to redefine "healthy" is
the prodding of consumers, food companies, lawmakers, and the
courts, all of which seek an update to the 1994 standards by which
the term is regulated.  Given that what's healthy constantly seems
to be evolving and the general controversy surrounded the term, it
may be years before a new definition enters the dietary
vernacular. Until then, Frosted Flakes can be called "healthy,"
salmon can't, and I'll see you in court.



                            *********

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  * * *