CAR_Public/161107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 222




                            Headlines

20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: "Richmond" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AETNA INC: Claims for ERISA Benefits & Breach of Contract Pending
AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Trilegiant Class Action Appeal
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Conn. Case v. Webloyalty Underway
AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Calif. Case Appeal

ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Firefighters' Pension Fund Suit Underway
AMERICAN HEALTH: Faces "Smith" Suit Under FLSA, S.C. Wages Act
AMERICAN WATER: W.Va. Court Grants Initial OK to $126MM Accord
ATLAS VAN: "Leitzbach" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers
AUTOLIV INC: Nov. 17 Final Hearing to Approve Dealers Class Deal

AUTOLIV INC: Reached Agreement in Principle in 3 Canada Suits
AWP INC: Faces "Luster" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
B & A CONTRACTING: "Ntalianas" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
BELFOR USA: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Alleged Violations of FLSA
BELLA AUTOMOTIVE: "Borrero" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA

BEST WAY: Illegally Deducts Drivers' Paychecks, "Pride" Suit Says
BLUE CROSS: "Cotton" Claims Violation of Mental Health Parity Act
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Health Plan Renewal
BOFI HOLDING: Securities Litigation in California Underway
BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Faces 5,300+ Plavix Injury Claims

BRISTOL-MYERS: Amylin and Lilly Still Face 500 Byetta Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: 60 Abilify Cases in US, 2 in Canada Pending
BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Two Former Employees Still Pending
CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Defending TCPA Action in Kentucky
CACAFE INC: Faces "Marino" Suit for Misclassifying Workers

CAPITAL BANK: Settlement of Stockholder Case Awaits Approval
CAPITAL BANK: Reached Deal to Settle Overdraft Fees Action
CARESOUTH HEALTH: "Griswell" FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Ga.
CNA FINANCIAL: Management Evaluating 401(k) Plus Plan Class Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "De Lacour" Suit Claims False Claims on Tom's

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
CROSSVILLE BNRV: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Smith" Suit Says
CVR PARTNERS: Petition for Fee Award Remains Pending in "Sloan"
D.H.E COMPANY: "Ahwireng" Suit Asserts FLSA, Labor Law Breach
DANNON CO: Faces "Podpeskar" Suit Over "All Natural" Yoghurt Ad

DCH HEALTHCARE: "McGrew" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
DIAMOND RESORTS: "Finazzo" Files Suit Over False Advertisements
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Davenport's TCPA Class Suit Underway
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Case Proceeds to Discovery
DRDGOLD: May Appeal Certification, Transmissibility of Damages

EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Settles Charleston Residents' Spill Case
EXPEDIA INC: Defending Against Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit in Calif.
FACEBOOK INC: "Letizia" Suit Alleges Inflated Viewing Statistics
FHG REALTY: Crawford et al. Allege Violation of FLSA, NJ Wage Law
FIDELITY RESOURCES: "Onyenze" Lawsuit Invokes FLSA, Md. Wage Laws

GALLATIN COUNTY: Faces "Crawford" Suit Under FLSA, Ken. Wage Act
GEN ALHAMBRA: "Dunkijacobsnolton" Claims Illegal Payroll Policies
GENERAL MILLS: "Salamanca" False Ad Suit Moved to Northern Calif.
GNC HOLDINGS: $9.5 Million Settlement of "Brewer" Case Approved
GNC HOLDINGS: "Naranjo" Class Suit in Calif. Underway

GNC HOLDINGS: Judgment in "Chevalier" Wage Action Under Appeal
HELLER AND FRISONE: "Merritt" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FDCPA
HOPE HARDISON: Faces "Ross" Sued Over Fiduciary Duties Breach
HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suit by Home Depot
INGRAM MICRO: No Response Yet to Scheiner Class Suit in Del.

INTERSIL CORP: Faces "Zucker" Stock Suit Over Sale to Renesas
JEFFREY STEIN: "Cabezas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KING CABLE: Faces "Pavoni" Suit Over FLSA Violation
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Reached in EoTech Class Actions
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Certification Motion Pending

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 401(k) Plan Class Action in New York
LEGEND SENIOR: "Kilgore" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
LENDINGTREE INC: Class Notice Now Complete in "Dijkstra"
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Still Faces 2 Class Suits in Alabama
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation

LOVE MY CAR: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Pending
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $26MM Settlement Up for Nov. 17 Hearing
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Proceeding in "Gold" Action
MASTERCARD INC: Deposition Discovery to Commence in December 2016

MASTERCARD INC: Trial in British Columbia Case Set for Sept. 2018
MASTERCARD INC: Facing U.K. Consumers Collective Action
MASTERCARD INC: High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Dec. 2016
MASTERCARD INC: Late 2017 Trial for EMV Suit v Network Defendants
MCCORMICK & CO: "Holve" Suit Alleges False Ad of Natural Products

MCDONALD'S: Settles Franchise Workers' Wage Case for $3.75MM
MDL 2743: 16 Abrasion Suits Transferred to Virginia
MID-AMERICAN: "Donner" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2492
MIDWEST EXCHANGE: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Overruled Demurrer in "Schneider"

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Remand Securities Case Denied
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tentative Deal Reached in Suit v. TalentBin
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Dagut and Gordon Class Suits Underway
N&M COOLING: "Garcia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Sullivan" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Tolbert" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Towe" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Washington" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Williams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Wysocki" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

NCR CORP: Faces "Pederson" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code
NIDO CAFFE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. to Hold Oral Argument on Dec. 8
PANDORA MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Sheridan Suits
PANDORA MEDIA: Suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One Stayed

PIRIPI VMP: "Shkolnik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
RIPE JUICE: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SC MAINTENANCE: "Laguerre" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
SHANGHAI YINLING: Faces "Siegmund" Suit Over Acquisition

SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss "Sousa" Action Underway
SONY INTERACTIVE: "Moschitti" Alleges Defect in PlayStation 4
STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Class Action in Texas Remains Pending
STONERIDGE INC: Still Defends "Royal" Class Action in Oklahoma
STORMPROOF INC: "Melo" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA

TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Speakes" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
TRAVIS BUQUET: "Mejia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
UBER: Drivers Must be Considered Employees, British Tribunal Says
UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Hoy" Litigation Alleges Violation of ERISA
U.S. RENAL: "Holguin" Suit Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Code

UNIVERSAL AUTO: "Saghatelian" Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Code
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Status Report Due Dec. 23 in Merkin & Smith Case
WAL-MART STORES: "Maestas" Alleges False Ad of Battery Warranty
WEST BANCORPORATION: Expects to Pay $250,000 to Settle Iowa Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Orders Attorneys to Revise Spill Settlement

WILLBROS GROUP: Class Suit Over Financial Restatement Pending
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in Del.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Amended Complaint Filed in Oklahoma Case
WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks Summary Judgment in Singleton-LoGrasso
WORLD WRESTLING: Dismissal of "Laurinaitis" Action Sought

WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwell Seeks to Add WCW Inc as Defendant
YAHOO INC: Faces "Savett" Suit Over Theft of Users' Personal Info


                            *********

20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: "Richmond" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned James Richmond, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. 20/20 Communications,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06051, was transferred from the District of
Northern Illinois to the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Texas (Fort Worth). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-00994-Y to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

20/20 Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications company that
provides wireless Internet services for homes and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN PA
      600 N Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Colleen Grace DeRosa, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 558-3028
      Facsimile: (312) 807-3619
      E-mail: colleen.derosa@ogletreedeakins.com

         - and -

      Michael H. Cramer, Esq.
      CONNELLY SHEEHAN & MORAN
      150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 372-1969


AETNA INC: Claims for ERISA Benefits & Breach of Contract Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend against the plaintiffs' remaining claims for ERISA benefits
and breach of contract in the Out-of-Network Benefit Proceedings.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several
purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a
contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these
lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members
and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because
of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one
of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are
the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation.

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of $78
million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey
District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating
the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments
since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As
a result of this termination, we released the reserve established
in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $67 million ($103
million pretax).

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining
claims."

Aetna is one of the nation's diversified health care benefits
companies.


AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Trilegiant Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit have filed a notice of appeal and no schedule
has been set yet for the appeal.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.

On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012.

However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing
schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping
class actions in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.

The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement.

Certain Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court
also struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended
complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action
allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the
court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims
under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other
claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28,
2014. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a
scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence
immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015. On May 29,
2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which
were due February 29, 2016. If no dispositive motions were filed,
a joint trial memorandum would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury
selection would take place on May 3, 2016. If dispositive motions
were filed, the joint trial memorandum would be due by October 3,
2016, and jury selection would take place on November 1, 2016.

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an
opposition brief on December 15, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply
brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on
December 29, 2015.

On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the individual claims of the remaining named
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a response on March 21, 2016, and the
Company filed its response on April 4, 2016.

On August 23, 2016 the court granted Defendant's motion for
Summary Judgment as to all remaining claims against the
Defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 21,
2016.  No schedule has been set yet for the appeal.

The Company is one of the world's leading loyalty and customer
engagement solutions companies. The Company designs, markets and
services programs that strengthen and extend customer
relationships for many of the world's largest and most respected
companies.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Conn. Case v. Webloyalty Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Connecticut
court has held oral argument, but it has not yet issued a decision
regarding Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their case.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
EFT, ECPA, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and CUTPA violation (the "Connecticut
Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct
occurring on and after October 1, 2008.

On November 1, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which Plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on
Plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial
notice of the Plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in
support of the Company's second motion to dismiss.

On July 17, 2014, the court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike.
The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in
fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as
to whether all of Plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and
whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible.  The
court permitted the Plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his
complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct
limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014,
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other
discovery was stayed in the case.

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The Plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties
proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the
Defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The
Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on
April 24, 2015, the Defendants filed their reply briefs in
response to that opposition.

On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all
of the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave
to amend. On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal of the dismissal decision. Plaintiff's opening appeals
brief was filed on February 10, 2016.

The Company's answering brief was filed on April 15, 2016 and the
Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 11, 2016. The court held oral
argument on September 14, 2016, but it has not yet issued a
decision regarding Plaintiffs' appeal.

The Company is one of the world's leading loyalty and customer
engagement solutions companies. The Company designs, markets and
services programs that strengthen and extend customer
relationships for many of the world's largest and most respected
companies.


AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Calif. Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has not
yet scheduled a hearing for the appeal in a class action lawsuit
against Webloyalty.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of CUTPA. Both claims
are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and
billing of the Plaintiff, Webloyalty charged Plaintiff's credit or
debit card using information obtained through a data pass process
and without obtaining directly from Plaintiff his full account
number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly
required under ROSCA.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.

Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte
dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013.

The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013,
adding purported claims under the ECPA and for unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of
privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion
on January 27, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the
submissions and issue a decision on Plaintiff's motion without
oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The court allowed the Plaintiff 28 days to
file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint was not futile.

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22,
2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying
Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with
prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
responded to the motion on November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff
filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the
Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff
filed a reply brief on February 2, 2016. The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing for this appeal.

The Company is one of the world's leading loyalty and customer
engagement solutions companies. The Company designs, markets and
services programs that strengthen and extend customer
relationships for many of the world's largest and most respected
companies.


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Firefighters' Pension Fund Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend the class action lawsuit by the West
Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and certain of its current or
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to
disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related
parties that allegedly inflated Altisource Portfolio Solutions
S.A. share prices.

The Court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund for the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 and the Annuity Fund for the International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21,
2014 and an unspecified amount of damages.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on
March 23, 2015. On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the Lead Plaintiffs'
amended complaint failed to state a claim as to any of the
defendants, but permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to file another
amended complaint.

Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed second and third amended
complaints with substantially similar claims and theories.
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint on October 22, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing with
prejudice all claims against Ocwen Financial Corporation and
certain claims against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and the
officer and director defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss
as to other claims. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. intends to
continue to vigorously defend this suit.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., together with its
subsidiaries, is a marketplace and transaction solutions provider
for the real estate, mortgage and consumer debt industries.
Altisource's proprietary business processes, vendor and electronic
payment management software and behavioral science-based analytics
improve outcomes for marketplace participants.


AMERICAN HEALTH: Faces "Smith" Suit Under FLSA, S.C. Wages Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. American Health Associates, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-
03480-TMC-KFM (D.S.C., October 25, 2016), seeks to recover wages
under the Fair Labor Standards and the South Carolina Wages Act,
and various other state wage payment acts.  The case also alleges
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act.

American Health Associates, Inc. is a privately held family owned
company that provides clinical reference laboratory.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
     Lawrence E. McNair III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOHN G. RECKENBEIL, LLC
     215 Magnolia Street (29306)
     P.O. Box 1633
     Spartanburg, SC 29304
     Phone: (864) 582-5472
     Fax: (864) 582-7280
     E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com


AMERICAN WATER: W.Va. Court Grants Initial OK to $126MM Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on October 31
approved the preliminary principles, terms and conditions of an
agreed-upon settlement (the "Settlement") with respect to claims
among West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of American Water Works Company, Inc. (the
"Company"), American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC"),
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and the Company
(collectively, the "American Water Defendants"), and all class
members, putative class members, claimants and potential claimants
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), arising out of the January 9,
2014 Freedom Industries, Inc. chemical spill into the Elk River in
West Virginia.

In August 2015, Freedom Industries and six former Freedom
Industries employees (three of whom also were former owners of
Freedom Industries), pled guilty to criminal violations of the
federal Clean Water Act as a result of this chemical spill.

The terms of the Settlement propose a global federal and state
resolution of all litigation and potential claims against the
American Water Defendants and their insurers. A claimant may elect
to opt out of any final settlement agreement, in which case such
claimant will not receive any benefit from or be bound by the
terms of the Settlement. Under the terms and conditions of the
Settlement and any subsequent final settlement agreement, the
American Water Defendants have not admitted, and will not admit,
any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the
Plaintiffs in any of the actions to be resolved.

To date, there are 73 pending cases against WVAWC in federal and
state courts with respect to the Freedom Industries chemical
spill, including a consolidated class action originally filed
against the American Water Defendants in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Federal action").
The Federal action includes classes comprised of residential and
business customers of WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant as of
January 9, 2014. During September and October 2016, the court in
the Federal action dismissed all claims against the Company and
AWWSC, leaving WVAWC as the remaining American Water Defendant in
the lawsuit. A trial in the Federal action solely on issues of
fault was scheduled to begin on October 25, 2016, but the court in
the Federal action delayed the start of the trial pending ongoing
settlement discussions between the parties. Additionally, in
January 2016, all of the then-filed state court cases were
referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further
proceedings, and in June 2016, class action plaintiffs in the Mass
Litigation Panel proceeding filed a second amended consolidated
class action complaint naming only WVAWC as a defendant.

The proposed aggregate pre-tax amount of the Settlement is $126
million, of which $65 million would be contributed by WVAWC, and
the remainder would be contributed by certain of the Company's
general liability insurance carriers. The Company has general
liability insurance under a series of policies underwritten by a
number of individual carriers. Two of these insurance carriers,
which provide an aggregate of $50 million in insurance coverage to
the Company under these policies, were requested, but presently
have not agreed, to participate in the Settlement. The Company and
WVAWC will vigorously pursue their rights to insurance coverage
from these non-participating carriers for any contributions by
WVAWC to the Settlement. In this regard, WVAWC has filed a lawsuit
against one of these carriers alleging that the carrier's failure
to agree to participate in the Settlement constitutes a breach of
contract, and the Company is considering pursuing similar remedies
against the other non-participating carrier. Despite these
efforts, the Company may not ultimately be successful in obtaining
full or further reimbursement under these insurance policies for
amounts that WVAWC may be required to contribute to the
Settlement.

As a result of these events, WVAWC intends to record a charge to
earnings, net of insurance receivables, of $65 million ($39
million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2016. The Company
intends to fund WVAWC's contributions to the Settlement through
existing sources of liquidity, although no contribution by WVAWC
will be required unless and until the terms of the Settlement are
finally approved by the court in the Federal action. Furthermore,
under the terms of the Settlement, WVAWC has agreed that it will
not seek rate recovery from the Public Service Commission of West
Virginia for approximately $4 million in direct response costs
expensed in 2014 by WVAWC relating to the chemical spill as well
as for amounts paid by WVAWC under the Settlement.

The Settlement intends to establish a two-tier settlement fund for
the payment of claims, comprised of a guaranteed fund of $76
million and a claims-based payment fund of $50 million, to which
funds WVAWC and the Company's general liability insurance carriers
will contribute.  An additional $25 million would be contributed
to the guaranteed fund through a separate settlement by another
defendant to the Settlement.

The court in the Federal action has given the parties 30 days to
finalize, and obtain the court's preliminary approval of, the
terms of the Settlement. As a result, the court in the Federal
action has ordered a continuance of the trial date to December 5,
2016. If preliminary approval of the Settlement is obtained,
notice of the terms of the Settlement would then be provided to
members of the settlement class. Following the notice period, the
court in the Federal action would hold a fairness hearing to
consider final approval of the Settlement. There can be no
assurance that the court in the Federal action will provide its
approval as to any agreement negotiated between the parties
reflecting the terms of the Settlement.


ATLAS VAN: "Leitzbach" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK LEITZBACH, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. ATLAS VAN LINES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC-638058 (Cal. Super., County of
Los Angeles), October 25, 2016, alleges wage and labor violations,
arising out of, among other things, Defendants' alleged
misclassification of its truck and moving drivers as independent
contractors.

Defendants provide various shipping, moving, and delivery services
throughout California and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 514-5681
     Fax: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: Ghh@haffuetlawyers.com
             lp@haffuerlawyers.com


AUTOLIV INC: Nov. 17 Final Hearing to Approve Dealers Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a final approval
hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2016, on the settlement with
the truck and equipment dealers class.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the
Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were
named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust
class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015.
Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were
consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.  Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought
to represent four purported classes -- direct purchasers, auto
dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class
action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers -- who purchased
occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant,
indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing
such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts.

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered
into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the
three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million
to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto
dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor
settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was
expensed during the second quarter of 2014.  In exchange, the
plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes
would release Autoliv from all claims regarding their U.S.
purchases that were or could have been asserted on behalf of the
three classes in the MDL.

In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the
direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to
approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs; in December 2015,
the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer class
settlement; and on June 20, 2016, the MDL court granted final
approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the objections of
several individual class members, some of whom have appealed the
MDL court's approval of the Company's end-payor settlement and
several other defendants' settlements that were approved at the
same time.

This appeal will delay the finality of the Company's settlement
with the end-payor class. In addition, several individuals and one
insurer (and its affiliated entities) have opted-out of all of the
pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company's
settlement. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of
settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the
unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who
are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states
and municipalities.

In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that
opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, the venue for the MDL, against the Company
and the other settling defendants in the end-payor class
settlement. The Company has not been served with the lawsuit. The
Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate
outcome of this matter.

In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability,
reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve
certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S.
antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser
class settlement described above. The total amount of these
additional settlements was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during
the first quarter of 2015 approximately $77 million as a result of
these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had
been accrued in 2014.

In April 2016, the Company reached an agreement to settle with the
truck and equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The
settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the
class and the opportunity for class members to object to or opt-
out of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for
November 17, 2016.

Autoliv is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of automotive
safety systems to the automotive industry with a broad range of
product offerings, including passive safety systems and active
safety systems.


AUTOLIV INC: Reached Agreement in Principle in 3 Canada Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the remaining four
antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan
Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M.
Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court
of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and
Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et
al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina
in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian
cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct
and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems.

On October 13, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in three of the four class actions to settle on a
nationwide class basis for an amount that is not material to the
Company's results of operations. The settlement is subject to the
execution of a formal settlement agreement and court approval
following notice to the class members.

Once approved, this national settlement will include the claims of
the putative members of the fourth class action. The Company
accrued amounts during the three month periods ended March 31,
2016 and June 30, 2016 and an additional amount during the three
month period ended September 30, 2016 in connection with these
claims.

Autoliv is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of automotive
safety systems to the automotive industry with a broad range of
product offerings, including passive safety systems and active
safety systems.


AWP INC: Faces "Luster" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULETTE LUSTER 4964 East 110th Street Garfield Heights, Ohio
44125 and BETTY HAAS 2223 25th Street NE Canton, Ohio 44705 on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AWP
INC., D/B/A AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE c/o Statutory Agent CT
Corporation System 1300 East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Case
No. 1:16-cv-02613-CAB (N.D. Ohio, October 26, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides temporary traffic control services at work
sites throughout the United States, such as one-lane flagging
operations and multi-lane road closures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


B & A CONTRACTING: "Ntalianas" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spiros Ntalianas and Ilias Ilyrian, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. B & A Contracting of Landmark Inc.,
and B & A Contracting of NY Inc., and Kostas Georgiades, jointly
and severally, Case No. 2:16-cv-05934 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2016)
was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to remedy
Defendants' alleged wrongful withholding of Plaintiffs' lawfully
earned wages and overtime compensation. Plaintiffs also bring
these claims under New York Labor Law as well as the supporting
New York State Department of Labor Regulations for alleged
violations of minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay
and notice and record-keeping requirements. Finally, Plaintiffs
bring a claim for alleged breach of contract.

Corporate Defendants are owned and managed by Defendant Kostas
Georgiades and are in the business of performing tile
installations for various commercial buildings and schools in New
York City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BELFOR USA: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Alleged Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kelly, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
6:16-cv-01898-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla., October 31, 2016), alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay
lawful overtime compensation.

BELFOR USA GROUP, INC. conducts property restoration and disaster
mitigation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
     Scott C. Adams, Esq.
     LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
     2300 East Concord Street
     Orlando, FL 32803
     Phone: (407) 835-8968
     Fax: (407) 835-8969


BELLA AUTOMOTIVE: "Borrero" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON RODRIGUEZ BORRERO, Plaintiff, vs. BELLA AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
LTD a/k/a HEADQUARTER TOYOTA, a Florida Corporation, Defendant,
seeks to recover, on behalf of similarly situated, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
for alleged willful violations of the laws of the United States,
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bella Automotive Group Ltd., doing business as Headquarter Toyota,
operates as an automobile dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


BEST WAY: Illegally Deducts Drivers' Paychecks, "Pride" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lemiual l. Pride, Jimmy Cook, Jr., Karl Slocumb, Frederick
Manning, Mario Lorenzo White v. Best Way Logistics 1, Inc. and
Andriy Oleskiv, Case No. 1:16-cv-09901 (N.D. Ill., October 25,
2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other truck
drivers that work or worked for Best Way and were subject to a
weekly deduction from their paycheck without the prior written
consent of the drivers as required by the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act.

The Defendants operate a freight transportation arrangement
company located in Palatine, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron B. Maduff, Esq.
      Walker R. Lawrence, Esq.
      MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
      205 N. Michigan, Ave., Suite 2050
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 276-9000


BLUE CROSS: "Cotton" Claims Violation of Mental Health Parity Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cotten, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-12176-MLW (D. Mass., October 27, 2016),
alleges violation by the Defendant of the federal Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 by denying coverage for
mental health treatment.

Defendant is a not-for-profit managed care subsidiary of Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
     60 State Street, 7th Floor
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: (617) 573-5118
     Fax: (617) 371-2950
     E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

        - and -

     Jordan Lewis, Esq.
     JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
     4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
     Phone: 954-616-8995
     Fax: 954-206-0374
     E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Health Plan Renewal
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Simon, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, d/b/a ANTHEM
BLUE CROSS; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC
639205 (Cal. Super., October 31, 2016), was brought for alleged
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract,
and declaratory relief against Anthem for characterizing and
marketing its 2017 individual and family health plan contracts as
a "renewal" of its 2016 plans despite changing the plans from
"Preferred Provider Organization" or "PPO" plans, which offer out-
of-network benefits, into "Exclusive Provider Organization" or
"EPO" plans, which provide no out-of-network benefits.

BLUE CROSS -- http://www.bcbs.com/-- is a medical insurance
provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
     Travis M. Corby, Esq.
     SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP
     600 South Indian Hill Boulevard
     Claremont, CA 91711
     Phone: (909) 621-4935
     Fax: (909) 625-6915
     E-mail: MBidart@shernoff.com
             TCorby@shernoff.com

        - and -

     Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
     Laura Antonini, Esq.
     CONSUMER WATCHDOG
     2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
     Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Phone: (310) 392-0522
     Fax: (310) 392-8874
     E-mail: Jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
             Laura@consumerwatchdog.org


BOFI HOLDING: Securities Litigation in California Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the consolidated class action lawsuit.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015,
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action
lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff. The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain
Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. The
Class Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaints filed in the Golden Case and the Hazan Case both
allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful conduct that is
alleged in a complaint that was filed in a wrongful termination of
employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter"), and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and
misleading.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations
of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class Action and
in the Employment Matter, as well as those plaintiffs' statement
of the underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously
defending both cases.

BofI Holding is the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a
diversified financial services company with approximately $7.9
billion in assets that provides consumer and business banking
products through its branchless, low-cost distribution channels
and affinity partners.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Faces 5,300+ Plavix Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a
number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts
claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using
Plavix*. Currently, over 5,300 claims involving injury plaintiffs
as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed
in state and federal courts in various states including
California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York.

In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multi-
district litigation (MDL) to coordinate Federal pretrial
proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New
Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to
reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential
impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Amylin and Lilly Still Face 500 Byetta Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Amylin, a
former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in
product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there
are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of almost 2,300
active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include
injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S.

The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 137 of these
claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by
individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using
Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in
some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases
were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a multi-district
litigation (MDL) or in a coordinated proceeding in California
Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP).

In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary judgment
based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the
JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs have
appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Amylin has product
liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims
involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with
respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company
and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the
outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential
impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 60 Abilify Cases in US, 2 in Canada Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Otsuka) are co-
defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify.
Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive
gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been
approximately 60 cases filed in state and federal courts and two
cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global specialty
biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to discover, develop
and deliver innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Two Former Employees Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. continues to defend against class action
lawsuits by two of former employees, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2016.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees
(the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York
state law against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a
policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation
in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for
tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the
FLSA and New York state law. We intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit. We believe there is a reasonable possibility of loss
related to these claims, however, given the early stage of the
case, we are currently unable to determine the potential range of
exposure, if any."

As of September 25, 2016, Buffalo Wild Wings owned and operated
617 company-owned restaurants, including 608 Buffalo Wild
Wings(R), 7 R Taco(R), and 2 PizzaRev(R) restaurants in the United
States and Canada.  Buffalo Wild Wings also franchised an
additional 602 restaurants, including 595 Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurants and 7 R Taco restaurants.


CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Defending TCPA Action in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Company is party
to a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular
telephones without first obtaining consent due to reassignment of
the number or revocation of prior consent. At the present time,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss
that may arise from this matter. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued a liability related to this matter.

Cabela's Incorporated is a specialty omni-channel retailer of
hunting, fishing, camping, shooting sports, and related outdoor
merchandise.


CACAFE INC: Faces "Marino" Suit for Misclassifying Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
LEONA MARINO on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CACAFE, INC., JANE ZHENG, COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC., and DOES
1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-06291-DMR (N.D.
Cal., October 31, 2016), seeks relief from Defendants' alleged
willful misclassification of its Instore Demonstrators as
independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

CAcafe is a coffee manufacturer and distributor that contracts
with various companies to promote its products.

Costco Corporation is a corporation that, in relevant part,
operates a national chain of warehouse stores in which it
regularly present samples of food products it sells to customers.
Club Demonstration Services is a corporation which provides
"demonstrations and services . . .  to Costco Wholesale, its
vendors and its members" according to Club Demonstration Services'
website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
     Eduard Meleshinsky, Esq.
     BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
     1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: 888-891-8489
     Fax: 510-444-9301
     E-mail: Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com


CAPITAL BANK: Settlement of Stockholder Case Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
settlement in the case, In re CommunityOne Bancorp Consolidated
Stockholder Litigation, No. 5:16-cv-00037 (the "Consolidated WDNC
Action"), remains pending.

On January 16, 2016, a case captioned Robert Garfield v. Capital
Bank Financial Corp., et al., Index No. 2016-001194-CA-01 (Fla.
Cir. Ct.) (the "Garfield Action"), was filed on behalf of a
putative class of Capital Bank Financial shareholders against
Capital Bank Financial, its directors, and CommunityOne in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade
County, Florida in connection with the merger. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Capital Bank Financial
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the merger, that CommunityOne aided and abetted such breaches, and
that Capital Bank Financial, its directors and CommunityOne failed
to disclose material information in connection with the merger.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages,
interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses.

On February 29, 2016, a case captioned Curtis R. Pendleton v.
Robert L. Reid, et al., Case 5:16-cv-00037 (W.D.N.C.) (the
"Pendleton Action"), was filed on behalf of a putative class of
CommunityOne shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and
Capital Bank Financial in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in connection with the merger.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint Proxy Statement that,
plaintiff alleges, is materially incomplete and misleading.

On March 14, 2016, a case captioned Floyd Scrogham v. Robert L.
Reid, et al., No. 5:16-cv-00045 (the "Scrogham Action") was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina on behalf of a putative class of CommunityOne
shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and Capital Bank
Financial. The complaint in the Scrogham Action, like the
complaint in the Pendleton Action, alleges, among other things,
that certain defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint
Proxy Statement that, plaintiffs allege, is materially incomplete
and misleading.

The Pendleton and Scrogham Actions seek, among other things, an
order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief
and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys'
fees) and expenses.

On March 31, 2016, the Pendleton and Scrogham Actions were
consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re CommunityOne
Bancorp Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, No. 5:16-cv-00037
(the "Consolidated WDNC Action").

On April 1, 2016, the parties to the Consolidated WDNC Action
filed with the Court a memorandum of understanding in which the
parties agreed on the terms of a settlement of those lawsuits. In
connection with the settlement, CommunityOne made certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016.
The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement
following completion of confirmatory discovery, consummation of
the merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the
court. There can be no assurance that the parties to the
Consolidated WDNC Action will ultimately enter into a stipulation
of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even
if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated. If the proposed settlement is
finally approved by the court, it will release all claims in the
Consolidated WDNC Action that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith and preclude further proceedings.

On April 4, 2016, the parties to the Garfield Action reached an
agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the Garfield
Action and entered into a stipulation of settlement. In connection
with the settlement, Capital Bank Financial made certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016.
The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the completion of confirmatory discovery, consummation of the
merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.
If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will release all claims in the Garfield Action that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger and any
disclosures made in connection therewith and preclude further
proceedings. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be
approved.

The defendants agreed to the settlement of these lawsuits to avoid
the uncertainty, costs, distraction and disruption inherent in
litigation and without admitting that further supplemental
disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. Settlement hearings will be scheduled to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
proposed settlements following notice to the Capital Bank
Financial and CommunityOne stockholders. If each of the proposed
settlements is finally approved by the respective courts
considering such settlements, the settlements will resolve and
release all claims in the Garfield Action and the Consolidated
WDNC Action that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger or the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that
will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement by the respective courts. In addition, in connection
with the proposed settlements, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will seek awards of attorneys' fees and
expenses from each respective court. Capital Bank Financial,
CommunityOne or their successors will pay or cause to be paid
those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the respective
courts. There can be no assurance that the courts will approve the
settlements.

Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009
with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the
southeastern region of the United States through organic growth
and acquisitions of other banks, including failed, underperforming
and undercapitalized banks.


CAPITAL BANK: Reached Deal to Settle Overdraft Fees Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company on September 16, 2016, entered into a settlement agreement
to settle a purported class action litigation regarding the
alleged improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees (the
"Settlement Agreement"). The litigation was filed in the Chancery
Court for Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, on February 1, 2011
against GreenBank ("GreenBank") regarding activity that occurred
between February 1, 2005 and June 30, 2011. The Company completed
the acquisition of GreenBank on September 8, 2011. The Company
agreed to the Settlement Agreement solely by way of compromise and
settlement and to avoid further litigation expense. The Company's
agreement is not in any way an admission of liability, fault or
wrongdoing by the Company or by GreenBank.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company
will pay $1.5 million to settle the litigation which will be
payable within fourteen days after preliminary court approval of
the settlement. In addition, the Company agreed not to use debit
re-sequencing, weekend and holiday high-to-low posting or weekend
and holiday batch processing for a period of at least 36 months
following final court approval of the settlement. The Company does
not currently engage in such re-sequencing or batching process
described.

Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009
with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the
southeastern region of the United States through organic growth
and acquisitions of other banks, including failed, underperforming
and undercapitalized banks.


CARESOUTH HEALTH: "Griswell" FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA GRISWELL On Behalf of HERSELF and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. CARESOUTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-
00144-JRH-GRS (M.D. Ga., September 29, 2016) was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,
according to the case docket dated October 27, 2016.

Plaintiff alleges that she regularly worked more than forty hours
per week without receiving overtime pay, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

CareSouth, Inc. operated home health and hospice operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Moore, Esq.
     POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
     3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Phone: (404) 523-7706
     Fax: (404) 524-1648
     E-mail: michaelmoore@pmkm.com
             efile@pmkm.com

        - and -

     Charles W. Byrd, Esq.
     POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
     1200 6th Avenue
     Columbus, GA 31901-2613
     Phone: (706) 324-0050
     Fax: (706) 327-1536
     E-mail: chuckbyrd@pmkm.com
             efile@pmkm.com

        - and -

     Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
     Scott P. Tift, Esq
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2202
     Fax: (615) 252-3798
     E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
             stift@barrettjohnston.com

        - and -

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     Fax: (215) 884-2492
     E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Management Evaluating 401(k) Plus Plan Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in September
2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against Continental
Casualty Company (CCC), Continental Assurance Company (CAC), CNAF,
the Investment Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan, The Northern
Trust Company and John Does 1-10 (collectively Defendants) over
the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan.

The complaint alleges that Defendants breached fiduciary duties to
the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan and caused prohibited transactions in
violation of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
when the CNA Fixed Income Fund's annuity contract with CAC was
canceled. The plaintiff alleges he and a proposed class of the CNA
401(k) Plus Plan participants who had invested in the Fixed Income
Fund suffered lower returns in their CNA 401(k) Plus Plan
investments as a consequence of these alleged violations and seeks
relief on behalf of the putative class.

Management has only recently begun evaluating the lawsuit as this
litigation is in its preliminary stages, and as of yet no class
has been certified. CCC and the other Defendants are contesting
the case and management currently is unable to predict the final
outcome or the impact on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows. As of September 30, 2016,
the likelihood of loss is reasonably possible, but the amount of
loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "De Lacour" Suit Claims False Claims on Tom's
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE DE LACOUR, and ANDREA WRIGHT individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., and TOM'S
OF MAINE INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-08364 (S.D.N.Y., October 27,
2016), alleges that Defendants make false and misleading "natural"
claims on Tom's of Maine product line in violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Colgate-Palmolive Company -- http://www.colgatepalmolive.com/--
is a consumer products company that markets its products
throughout the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
     Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
             jarisohn@bursor.com
             pfraietta@bursor.com


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the securities litigation has been denied.

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-
05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class
period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, as well as equitable or other relief.

Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was
appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.

On December 17, 2015, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case
was granted and the case dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were
permitted to re-file their claim, which they did on February 5,
2016.

Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016, which
was denied by the court on September 30, 2016.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The
Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of
the litigation will have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of September 30,
2016 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter.

CommVault is a provider of data and information management
software applications and related services.


CROSSVILLE BNRV: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Smith" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond L. Smith, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Crossville BNRV Sales, LLC, GA BNRV SALES,
LLC, and Derwood Littlefield, Case No. 2:16-cv-00089 (M.D. Tenn.,
October 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the boat and recreational vehicle
detail, repair and sales business in Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
              jholt@jsyc.com
              rbryant@jsyc.com
              pjackson@jsyc.com


CVR PARTNERS: Petition for Fee Award Remains Pending in "Sloan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVR Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the petition of
the plaintiff's counsel in the Sloan Lawsuit for the award of
attorneys' fees remains pending with the Court.

As disclosed in the 2015 Form 10-K, two class action lawsuits were
filed in connection with the East Dubuque Merger, (i) the "Mustard
Lawsuit", which was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, and (ii) the "Sloan Lawsuit" (together with Mustard
Lawsuit, the "Merger Lawsuits"), which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
Merger Lawsuits alleged (among other things) breach of fiduciary
duties and inadequate disclosure, in each case, in connection with
the East Dubuque Merger.

In February 2016, the parties to the Merger Lawsuits entered into
a memorandum of understanding providing for the proposed
settlement of the Merger Lawsuits. The parties subsequently
entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was subject to
customary conditions including court approval following notice to
the CVR Nitrogen unitholders.

In July 2016, the Mustard Lawsuit was dismissed, and in October
2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an order and judgment approving the settlement
of the Sloan Lawsuit.

The settlement resolves and releases all claims by unitholders of
CVR Nitrogen challenging the East Dubuque Merger. The plaintiff's
counsel in the Sloan Lawsuit has filed a petition for the award of
attorneys' fees, which remains pending with the Court.

The Partnership does not believe the settlement or the award of
attorneys' fees will have a material adverse effect on the
Partnership's business, financial condition or results of
operation.

CVR Partners, LP (referred to as "CVR Partners" or the
"Partnership") is a Delaware limited partnership, formed by CVR
Energy, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, but excluding the
Partnership and its subsidiaries, "CVR Energy") to own, operate
and grow its nitrogen fertilizer business. Nitrogen fertilizer is
used by farmers to improve the yield and quality of their crops,
primarily corn and wheat. The Partnership principally produces
ammonia and urea ammonium nitrate ("UAN"), an aqueous solution of
urea and ammonium nitrate. The Partnership's product sales are
sold on a wholesale basis in North America.


D.H.E COMPANY: "Ahwireng" Suit Asserts FLSA, Labor Law Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL AHWIRENG, individual and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, v. D.H.E COMPANY, INC., and DOUGLAS COHEN, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08388 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover,
among others, alleged unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants operate a construction company through their New York,
New York location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP. P.C.
     1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Phone: (718) 808-2224
     E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


DANNON CO: Faces "Podpeskar" Suit Over "All Natural" Yoghurt Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
POLLY PODPESKAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DANNON COMPANY INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-08478 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2016),
seeks to enjoin Defendant's alleged false and misleading practices
of representing its yogurt products as "All Natural" when they
contain ingredients derived using non-natural genetically modified
organisms.

Defendant manufactures and markets yogurt products, including
products under the brand name "Dannon."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     George V. Granade, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Fax: (212) 253-4272
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
             ggranade@reesellp.com

        - and -

     Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
     Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     1650 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 605-4098
     Fax: (612) 605-4099
     E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             boyle@halunenlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     George V. Granade, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Fax: (212) 253-4272
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
             ggranade@reesellp.com

        - and -

     Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
     Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     1650 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 605-4098
     Fax: (612) 605-4099
     E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             boyle@halunenlaw.com


DCH HEALTHCARE: "McGrew" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARLINE McGREW, KASEY O'BRYANT, LEIGH HARBIN, MELISSA HARVEY, JANE
LAGGAN, RACHEL PEARSON, KAREN BALL, TASHA SILVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. DCH HEALTHCARE
AUTHORITY, Case No. 7:16-cv-01756-RDP (N.D. Ala., October 26,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, back
pay, liquidated damages, attorney fees, interest, expenses and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff Jane Laggan
also brings a claim for violations of the Family and Medical Leave
Act.

DCH Healthcare Authority Inc., doing business as DCH Health
System, owns and operates hospitals that provide health care
services in West Alabama.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J. Michael Comer, Esq.
     PATTERSON COMER LAW FIRM
     303 Main Ave., Ste. A
     Northport, AL 35476
     Phone: (205) 759-3939
     Fax: (205) 759-3931
     E-mail: jmikecomer@yahoo.com

        - and -

     Stanley J. Murphy, Esq.
     MURPHY & MURPHY, LLC
     P.O. Box 3163
     Tuscaloosa, AL 35403


DIAMOND RESORTS: "Finazzo" Files Suit Over False Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATT DANIEL FINAZZO AND JANET LOUISE FINAZZO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIAMOND RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL CLUB, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-02256 (C.D. Cal.,
October 27, 2016), accuses Defendant of making and advertising
false promises and statements with regards to its timeshare
contracts.

Defendant is in the vacation ownership industry, and sells
timeshare contracts to consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Davenport's TCPA Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted
by the Sumner Davenport class action.

On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on
their cellular and residential telephones without their express
consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).

On March 9, 2016, Sumner Davenport was substituted as lead
plaintiff for Polly Hansen. The Company will seek to vigorously
defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff.

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Case Proceeds to Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery
will now proceed in the case, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's
Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and
EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss
for certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to
dismiss filed by the other networks, including the Company.
Discovery will now proceed.

The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely
outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but
will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the
plaintiffs.

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company.


DRDGOLD: May Appeal Certification, Transmissibility of Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DRDGOLD Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in the Silicosis Litigation,
the Supreme Court of Appeal has granted the DRDGOLD Respondents
leave to appeal on both the certification and transmissibility of
damages.

In January 2013, DRDGOLD, ERPM ("the DRDGOLD Respondents") and 23
other mining companies ("the Mining Companies") were served with a
court application for a class action by alleged former mineworkers
and dependants of deceased mineworkers. In the pending application
the applicants allege that the Mining Companies and the DRDGOLD
Respondents conducted underground mining operations in a negligent
manner that caused occupational lung diseases. The matter was
heard in October 2015.

On May 13, 2016, the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
("Court") handed down judgment in respect of the class action
certification in terms of which the applicants sought
certification of two industry-wide classes: a silicosis class and
a tuberculosis class, both of which cover current and former
underground mineworkers who have contracted the respective
diseases (or the dependants of mineworkers who died of those
diseases).

In terms of the judgment, the Court ordered the certification of a
single class action comprising two separate and distinct classes
-- a silicosis class and a tuberculosis class.

An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
("SCA") was filed and served at the Court by the DRDGOLD
Respondents (as well as the Mining Companies) on June 3, 2016 in
respect of inter alia the transmissibility of damages.

On June 23, 2016, the Court granted leave to appeal to the SCA
against inter alia the transmissibility of damages. On July
15, 2016, the DRDGOLD Respondents filed and served its petition to
the SCA in respect of the certification issue. The notice of
appeal in respect of the transmissibility of damages was filed and
served on July 25, 2016.

On September 13, 2016, the SCA granted the DRDGOLD Respondents
leave to appeal on both the certification and transmissibility of
damages.

"It is not possible at this stage to ascertain what the probable
outcome of this case will be and how it will affect our business,
operating results and financial condition," the Company said.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Settles Charleston Residents' Spill Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
proposed settlement has been reached between Charleston residents
and a chemical company accused of not doing enough to safeguard
West Virginia's capital city from a spill that polluted the
drinking water of thousands of people in 2014.

According to court officials, attorneys for Eastman Chemical and
Charleston-area residents and businesses proposed the settlement.
Eastman is producer of a coal-cleaning agent that spilled.

It is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver.
Its terms are sealed.  The settlement would apply in the class-
action suit to about 225,000 people and more than 7,000 businesses
whose tap water was contaminated and who were advised for days not
to use it.

Eastman Chemical did not reply to requests for comment on
Oct. 26.

Anthony Majestro, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said it would
apply to all state and federal court claims and will be unsealed
after trial or settlement of class-action claims against West
Virginia American Water.  Those settlement talks were continuing
on Oct. 26, he said.

Judge Copenhaver postponed the trial against the water company to
Oct. 28.  It had been set to begin on Oct. 27.

The chemical leaked from a storage tank of Freedom Industries into
the Elk River in January 2014, about 1.5 miles upstream from the
water system's intake, preventing the capital and nearby areas
from using tap water for days.  Businesses temporarily shut,
hundreds went to emergency rooms complaining of nausea and rashes,
and authorities later adopted more stringent inspections of
aboveground storage tanks.  Days after the spill, Freedom filed
for bankruptcy.

Judge Copenhaver certified the class-action suit a year ago for
the plaintiffs, saying they were mostly residents whose water
supply was interrupted, employees who lost wages during business
closures and others impacted in varying ways by the disaster.

The suit alleged the water company was unprepared for the spill
and that Eastman Chemical didn't advise Freedom of the dangers of
the coal-cleaning agent.

Laura Martin, a spokeswoman for West Virginia American Water, said
the water company only began lifting a do-not-use order on tap
water between four and nine days after the spill once tests showed
the chemical had flushed from the water supply.  The company's
multiple systems provide water to about 560,000 people in West
Virginia.  The system for greater Charleston was the only one
affected.  She said the claims against the company are "without
merit."

Eastman produced the coal-cleaning chemical that leaked from the
Freedom Industries tank.  The suit claims the company didn't test
the corrosive chemical MCHM properly or warn about possible
effects on human health or tanks used to store it.

In court filings, Eastman said it wasn't negligent, didn't violate
environmental laws and complied with federal guidelines for
testing the chemical it sold to Freedom Industries.

In late September, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board released a draft
report on the spill, saying it found no documentation of
inspections by Freedom Industries that would have identified
corrosion in its leaky aboveground tank. It also said Freedom
lacked leak detection or prevention systems.

West Virginia lawmakers have imposed new inspection and
containment requirements on above-ground storage tanks.

In February, Former Freedom Industries officials Gary Southern and
Dennis Farrell were sentenced to a month in federal prison on
pollution charges.  Four others received probation.

On Oct. 24 Judge Copenhaver ordered a separate trial for claims
against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Defending Against Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the Buckeye Tree Lodge Lawsuit.

An Initial Case Management Conference is set for Nov. 22, 2016
1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, San Francisco.

On Nov. 3, 2016, the Hon. Vince Chhabria granted a Stipulation
selecting Mediation to be completed within 90 days.

On August 17, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in
federal district court in the Northern District of California
against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz and Trivago relating to
alleged false advertising. Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village
Inn, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-SK (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California). The putative
class is comprised of hotels and other providers of overnight
accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia defendants'
websites with whom the Expedia defendants did not have a booking
agreement during the relevant time period. The complaint asserts
claims against the Expedia defendants for violations of the Lanham
Act, the California Business & Professions Code, intentional and
negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust
enrichment and restitution.

The Defendants are represented in the case by:

     Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
     Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq.
     Covington & Burling LLP
     One Front Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
     Tel: 415 591 6000
     E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com
             clannin@cov.com

          - and -

     Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
     Covington & Burling LLP
     333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
     Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
     Tel: 650 632 4700
     E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


FACEBOOK INC: "Letizia" Suit Alleges Inflated Viewing Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOM LETIZIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated; MARK FIERRO, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, and GREG AGUSTIN JR. individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation; DOES 1 though 20, inclusive., Case No. 3:16-
cv-06232 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2016), alleges that Facebook
mislead Plaintiffs and others similarly situated by
misrepresenting that consumers were viewing purchased
advertisements for a longer duration than actually viewed.

Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com-- operates a social
networking website that allows registered users to create
profiles, upload photos and videos, send messages and keep in
touch with friends, family and colleagues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
     Robert M. Adams, Esq.
     Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
     EGLET PRINCE
     400 South Seventh St., Ste. 400
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Phone: (702) 450-5400
     Fax: (702) 450-5451
     E-mail: eservice@egletwall.com

        - and -

     Joseph A. Motta, Esq.
     RUEB & MOTTA
     1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 880
     Concord, CA 94520
     Phone: (925) 602- 3400
     Fax: (925) 602-0622


FHG REALTY: Crawford et al. Allege Violation of FLSA, NJ Wage Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA CRAWFORD, JESSICA HOWLEY, DANIELLE LAWRENCE, COLLEEN
MONAGHAN-GIRARDO, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FHG REALTY URBAN
RENEWAL, LLC d/b/a THE RIVERWINDS RESTAURANT, JNB RIVERWINDS,
INC., FOTIOS FARMAKIS, GEORGE DRAKOS, and HELENA BALIS, Case No.
1:16-cv-07797 (D.N.J., October 25, 2016), alleges that Defendants
systematically and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay its
waitstaff the federal minimum required cash wage of $2.13 per
hour.

Defendant FHG Realty Urban Renewal, LLC d/b/a The Riverwinds
Restaurant is a restaurant located at 1075 Riverwinds Drive, West
Deptford, New Jersey 08086.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
     MCOMBER & MCOMBER P.C.
     30 S. Maple Avenue
     Marlton, NJ 08053
     Phone: (856) 985-9800
     Fax: (732) 530-8545
     E-mail: mal@njlegal.com

        - and -

     Simon B. Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY P.C.
     1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 496-8282
     Fax: (215) 496-0999
     E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
             phoward@smbb.com
             ckocher@smbb.com


FIDELITY RESOURCES: "Onyenze" Lawsuit Invokes FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ONYENZE, 2001 Homewood Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Resident of Baltimore City, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Employees v. FIDELITY RESOURCES, INCORPORATED
1045 Taylor Avenue Suite 206 Parkville, Maryland 21234 Serve:
Chris Duru 6505 Sanzo Road Apartment F Pikesville, Maryland 21209,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03543-GLR (D. Md., October 25, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act; unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour
Law; and unpaid wages, interest, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Defendant provides community-based services to persons with
special needs.  Defendant's business centers on supplying home
healthcare and supervisory care services to these persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davi, III, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-845
     E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com


GALLATIN COUNTY: Faces "Crawford" Suit Under FLSA, Ken. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CRAWFORD AND RACHAEL CRAWFORD individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. GALLATIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY
Serve Ken McFarland County Judge Executive Gallatin County
Courthouse 200 Washington Street Warsaw, Kentucky 41095, Case No.
2:16-cv-00188-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ken., October 25, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages,
penalties, fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.

Defendant, through its Gallatin County Emergency Medical
Service employees, provides professional transportation of sick
and injured individuals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronald E. Johnson Jr.,
     SCHACHTER HENDY & JOHNSON, PSC
     909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Ste. #210
     Ft. Wright, KY 41011
     Phone: 859-578-4444
     Fax: 859-578-4440
     E-mail: rjohnson@pschachter.com

        - and -

     Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     David H. Grounds, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     Saint Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
             dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
             mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


GEN ALHAMBRA: "Dunkijacobsnolton" Claims Illegal Payroll Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY DUNKIJACOBSNOLTON, an individual, v. GEN ALHAMBRA, LLC, a
limited liability company; GEN RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
limited liability company; GEN TORRANCE, LLC, a limited liability
company; GEN CERRITOS, LLC, a limited liability company; GEN CHINO
HILLS, LP, a limited liability partnership; GEN NORTHRIDGE, LP, a
limited liability partnership; GEN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LP, a limited
liability partnership; GEN ROWLAND HEIGHTS, LP, a limited
liability partnership; GEN SAN JOSE, LP, a limited liability
partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC-6 38492
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, October 25, 2016), was
brought on behalf of all similarly situated Plaintiffs for
Defendants' alleged illegal payroll policies and practices.

GEN ALHAMBRA, LLC is a mid-sized restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas W. Perlman, Esq.
     RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
     22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
     Torrance, CA 90505
     Phone: (310) 961-9600
     Fax: (310)961-9094
     E-mail: douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com


GENERAL MILLS: "Salamanca" False Ad Suit Moved to Northern Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned EDWARD SALAMANCA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., CASE No. 0:16-
cv-03616-JNE-HB, (August 24, 2016) was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Northern California, according
to an October 24, 2016 case docket.

The case alleges false, misleading, and deceptive advertising of
Nature Valley products as "Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain
Oats."

GENERAL MILLS, INC. is a global manufacturer and marketer of
branded consumer foods sold through retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 433-4949
     Fax: (415) 433-7311
     E-mail: mram@rocklaw.com

        - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Phone: (206) 816-6603
     Fax: (206) 319-5450
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

        - and -

     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (212) 687-8291
     Fax: (212) 687-8292
     E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


GNC HOLDINGS: $9.5 Million Settlement of "Brewer" Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the federal court
has approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the case by
Charles Brewer with prejudice.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims. In October
2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging,
among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on
behalf of sales associates and store managers.

In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's
claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and
granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA
class.

In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant
wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in
September 2015.

On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the
putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case
and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims,
pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in
the aggregate, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Following a hearing on August 23, 2016, the Court approved the
settlement agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice. As a
result of this settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $6.3
million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2 million
previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and
performance products, including protein, performance supplements,
weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens,
wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other
general merchandise.


GNC HOLDINGS: "Naranjo" Class Suit in Calif. Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that former Senior
Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, on February 29, 2012, sued General
Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight
causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break
and overtime violations.

As of September 30, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued
in the accompanying financial statements.  No further updates were
provided in the Company's SEC Report.

GNC is represented in the case by Susan L. Germaise --
sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods LLP.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and
performance products, including protein, performance supplements,
weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens,
wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other
general merchandise.


GNC HOLDINGS: Judgment in "Chevalier" Wage Action Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has
taken an appeal from the adverse judgment in the class action by
Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a
purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating
workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of
all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who
were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use
of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA.

In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been
recorded as a charge in the quarter ended September 30, 2016 in
the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees,
costs and incentive payments; that petition is pending.

The Company appealed from the adverse judgment; the appeal is
pending.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and
performance products, including protein, performance supplements,
weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens,
wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other
general merchandise.


HELLER AND FRISONE: "Merritt" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MERRITT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HELLER AND FRISONE, LTD., Case No. 2016-CH-13995
(Ill. Cir., Cook County, October 26, 2016), alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending debt
collection letters to Plaintiff and purported Class members, in
which Defendant failed to disclose that any information obtained
as a result of the letter will be used for the purpose of
collecting the debt.

HELLER AND FRISONE, LTD. is a debt collection law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr, Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: tom@attorneyszim.com
             amy@attorneyszim.com
             sharon@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorneyzim.com

        - and -

     Rusty A. Payton, Esq.
     PAYTONDANN
     115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 702-1000
     E-mail: payton@paytondann.com


HOPE HARDISON: Faces "Ross" Sued Over Fiduciary Duties Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Sterling Ross, and all other individuals similarly situated
v. Hope Hardison, Timothy J. Sloan, David A. Hoyt, Michael J.
Heid, Frank Codel, and Justin C. Thornton, Case No. 0:16-cv-03595-
JNE-FLN (D. Minn., October 24, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
participants in and beneficiaries of the Wells Fargo 401(k) Plan,
to recover millions of dollars of damage suffered in their
retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to
them relating to the recent Wells Fargo Fake Account Scandal.

Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company
with its headquarters in San Francisco, California, which provides
banking, investments, insurance, mortgage, and consumer and
commercial finance products and services.

Hope Hardison was the Director of Human Resources of
Wells Fargo, and later also became the Company's Chief
Administrative Officer.

Timothy J. Sloan was the Head of Wholesale Banking at Wells Fargo
from May 15, 2014 through the end of the Class Period.

David A. Hoyt was the Head of Wholesale Banking at Wells Fargo
from the beginning of the Class Period until May 15, 2014.

Michael J. Heid was the Head of Home Lending at Wells Fargo from
the beginning of the Class Period through September 30, 2015.

Frank Codel was the Head of Home Lending at Wells Fargo from
October 1, 2015 through the end of the Class Period.

Justin C. Thornton is and was the Director of Compensation and
Benefits at Wells Fargo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas J. Nill, Esq.
      DOUGLAS J. NILL, PLLC
      2050 Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801
      Telephone: (612) 573-3669
      Facsimile: (612) 330-0959
      E-mail: dnill@farmlaw.com

         - and -

      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
      Edward H. Glenn, Esq.
      ZAMANSKY LLC
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com


HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suit by Home Depot
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has
been named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by an
Indirect Purchaser, Home Depot.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in consolidated
class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12,
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
alleging that we, our co-defendants and other alleged co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO2 sold in the U.S.
between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other
defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal
(formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a
class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased TiO2 directly
from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1,
2003. On December 13, 2013, we and all other defendants settled
the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the
settlement. We paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our
financial statements.

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. On February
26, 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation
and subsequently paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to
our financial statements.

"We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers") making
essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On
October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO2.
On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint.
A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29,
2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural
paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the
laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of
nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16
states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed
another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court
substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer
protection claims in one state.

"On August 23, 2016, we were named as a defendant in a fourth
civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home
Depot. Home Depot is an Indirect Purchaser primarily through
paints it purchasers from various manufacturers. Home Depot makes
the same claims as the Direct and Indirect Purchasers.

"The plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchasers claims seek to recover
injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed
by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware
of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees.
Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these claims and
could incur additional costs in amounts which in the aggregate
could be material to us. Because of the overall complexity of
these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible
loss or range of loss and we have made no accrual with respect to
these claims."


INGRAM MICRO: No Response Yet to Scheiner Class Suit in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ingram Micro Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Company and the
other defendants to the Scheiner class action suit in Delaware
have not yet been required to respond to the complaint or the
motion for expedited proceedings, but the Company believes the
suit is without merit.

On March 8, 2016, a putative stockholder class action suit
captioned Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc. et al., 30-2016-00839447-
CU-SL-CXC CXC, was filed in the Superior Court in Orange County,
California. The complaint named as defendants Ingram Micro, its
directors, Tianjin Tianhai and Merger Subsidiary. The complaint
asserted that Ingram Micro's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, by agreeing to supposedly unfair
deal protection devices and by allegedly acting in a self-
interested manner. The complaint also generally alleged that
Tianjin Tianhai, Ingram Micro and Merger Subsidiary aided and
abetted such purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification and injunctive
relief blocking consummation of the merger.

On May 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal
of the action without prejudice. On May 17, 2016, the court
indicated that it would dismiss the action as requested.

On May 25, 2016, plaintiff refiled his lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware with a motion for expedited
proceedings. The Delaware complaint reasserts the claims raised in
the California complaint against Ingram Micro, its directors,
Tianjin Tianhai and merger sub, and further alleges that Ingram
Micro's directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into
confidentiality agreements containing standstill provisions with
interested parties. In addition, the Delaware complaint alleges
that Ingram Micro's May 19, 2016 proxy statement failed to
disclose material information concerning (1) the sales process and
(2) the financial analysis performed by the Board's financial
advisor. The Delaware complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification and injunctive relief blocking consummation of the
merger.

On June 2, 2016, Ingram Micro filed a Schedule 14A with
supplemental disclosures to its proxy statement. Ingram Micro and
the other defendants have not yet been required to respond to the
Delaware complaint or the motion for expedited proceedings.
Ingram Micro believes this action is without merit.

Ingram Micro delivers a full spectrum of global technology and
supply chain services to businesses around the world. Deep
expertise in technology solutions, mobility, cloud, and supply
chain solutions enables its business partners to operate
efficiently and successfully in the markets they serve.


INTERSIL CORP: Faces "Zucker" Stock Suit Over Sale to Renesas
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE ZUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERSIL CORPORATION, NECIP
SAYINER, DONALD MACLEOD, MERCEDES JOHNSON, SOHAIL KHAN, GREG LANG,
ERNIE MADDOCK, and FORREST NORROD, Defendants, Case No. 12862-
(Del. Ch., October 31, 2016), arises for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by Defendants arising out of their attempt to
sell the Company to Renesas Electronics Corp.

Intersil Corp. develops power management and precision analog
technology for computing, consumer, and industrial markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290


JEFFREY STEIN: "Cabezas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA CABEZAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. JEFFREY STEIN SALON NYC EAST 78, INC., JEFFREY STEIN
SALON NORTHEAST, INC., JEFFREY STEIN SALON NORTH, INC., JEFFREY
STEIN SALON SOUTH, INC., JEFFREY STEIN SALON EAST INC., and
JEFFREY MERMELSTEIN a/k/a JEFFREY MURMELSTEIN and a/k/a JEFFREY
STEIN, Case No. 1:16-cv-08385 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), seeks
to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and alleged
unlawful wage deductions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New
York Labor Law and New York Wage Payment Act.

Defendants operate hair salons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
     RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Penn Plaza
     250 West 34th Street, Suite 2430
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 382-1600
     E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com


KING CABLE: Faces "Pavoni" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO PAVONI, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs.
KING CABLE CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Florida Corporation, and ADRIAN
J. KING, JR., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24541-FAM
(S.D. Fla., October 31, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees over
unpaid overtime wages in violation of under the laws of the United
States and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

King Cable Construction Corporation is a water sewer and utility
lines construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Reached in EoTech Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that the parties in the
EoTech class action lawsuits have reached a settlement in
principle to resolve the allegations in these cases.

In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action
complaints against the Company were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United
States District Court of the District of Oregon. In March 2016,
two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
which assert similar claims against the Company.

In August of 2016, all five cases were consolidated into a single,
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri. The complaints allege that the
Company's EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective
holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims
including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer
protection statutes and unjust enrichment.

In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the allegations in these cases. The proposed settlement is
subject to court approval. The anticipated costs of this
settlement are reflected in the Company's financial results.

L-3 Communications is a prime contractor in Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft
sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance),
simulation and training, night vision and image intensification
equipment and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a
provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems
and products used on military and commercial platforms.  The
customers include the United States (U.S.) Department of Defense
(DoD) and its prime contractors, U.S. Government intelligence
agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), foreign
governments, and domestic and international commercial customers.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Certification Motion Pending
------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the Securities Class Action
remains pending before the District Court.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment,
and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, and
fees and expenses.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim
against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has
commenced.

On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which is pending before the District Court. The
Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any
amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in
connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their
early stages.

L-3 Communications is a prime contractor in Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft
sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance),
simulation and training, night vision and image intensification
equipment and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a
provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems
and products used on military and commercial platforms.  The
customers include the United States (U.S.) Department of Defense
(DoD) and its prime contractors, U.S. Government intelligence
agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), foreign
governments, and domestic and international commercial customers.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 401(k) Plan Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a 401(k) Plan Class Action.

On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored
401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2016.
As amended, the complaint alleges that certain of the Company's
officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company's stock
available as an investment alternative under the plan during a
period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors
identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The
complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, equitable
relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably
estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred
in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in
their early stages.

L-3 Communications is a prime contractor in Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft
sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance),
simulation and training, night vision and image intensification
equipment and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a
provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems
and products used on military and commercial platforms.  The
customers include the United States (U.S.) Department of Defense
(DoD) and its prime contractors, U.S. Government intelligence
agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), foreign
governments, and domestic and international commercial customers.


LEGEND SENIOR: "Kilgore" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Donna Kilgore, Chris Townsend,
Shelly Jones, Cindy Dimit, Karen Walker, Andre Henderson, Rodney
Nesbitt, Cathy Coover, Bouchaid Kbabra, Kim Praytor, Tonya Hodges-
Harris, Teresa Ooten, Scott Slemp, Kristi Sanders, Lori Wieland,
Valerie Morrison, and all other persons similarly situated, known
and unknown v. Legend Senior Living LLC, Case No. CJ-2016-5069,
was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S.
District Court Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01230-R to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Legend Senior Living LLC operates Independent Living, Assisted
Living, Memory Care, and Nursing Home residences in Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacque L. Pearsall, Esq.
      JACQUE PEARSALL PLLC
      3030 NW Expressway, Suite 200
      Oklahoma City, OK 73112
      Telephone: (405) 241-9476
      Facsimile: (405) 842-0079
      E-mail: jacquepearsall@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mary P. Snyder, Esq.
      CROWE & DUNLEVY
      Braniff Building
      324 N Robinson Ave, Suite 100
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 239-6649
      Facsimile: (405) 272-5943
      E-mail: mary.snyder@crowedunlevy.com

         - and -

      Tanya S. Bryant, Esq.
      CROWE & DUNLEVY
      Braniff Building
      324 N Robinson Ave, Suite 100
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-7720
      Facsimile: (405) 272-5918
      E-mail: tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com


LENDINGTREE INC: Class Notice Now Complete in "Dijkstra"
--------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in
the case, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center,
Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), has
been approved by the district court judge and class notice and
administration requirements are now complete.

In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence.

The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC
and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to
federal court in October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia.

In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC
and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June
2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million (the "Class Damages Award"). HLC filed a
notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the
district court's order was not yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's
appeal was dismissed.

In July 2015, the district court ordered that the Class Damages
Award be allocated such that two-thirds of the Class Damages Award
would be paid to the class members and one-third of the Class
Damages would be paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys. In addition,
the court ordered that HLC reimburse the class for attorneys' fees
by making an incremental payment of $389,500 attorneys' fee award
be paid by HLC to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The judge also
awarded prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2015, the district court judge entered a final
judgment order in this matter. On August 27, 2015, HLC filed its
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit with respect to the final judgment, the order granting
attorneys' fees, and the orders on class damages, the pretrial
conference, motions and class certification.

In June 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $1.9
million with respect to such matters. Such settlement was approved
by the district court judge in the third quarter of 2016 and class
notice and administration requirements are now complete.

During the three months ended September 30, 2016, the Company
reversed $1.3 million of the originally established liability for
this matter.


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Still Faces 2 Class Suits in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending two putative class action lawsuits in Alabama.

The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of
the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and
certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named
defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014,
and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit
Court of Dallas County, Alabama.  These lawsuits allege that
patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center underwent improper
interventional cardiology procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure.

The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015
also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, seeks
certification of a class of individuals that underwent an
interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically
necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This action asserts, among
other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in
the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the
RICO violation and attorneys' fees.

In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S.
District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss
and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending
resolution of these motions.

On April 17, 2015 the court entered an order granting the
requested stay of discovery.

On November 17, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge for the
Southern District of Alabama filed a Report and Recommendation
that the RICO claim be dismissed with prejudice, and that the
court not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, resulting in those claims being dismissed without
prejudice.

By Order dated March 28, 2016, the United States District Court
Judge adopted in full the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate, dismissing with prejudice the RICO claim and refusing
to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.   In
a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

Additionally, the Company, and two of its subsidiaries, including
Raleigh General Hospital, as well as Dr. Kenneth Glaser, have been
named in 82 individual lawsuits filed in the circuit court of
Raleigh County, West Virginia.  These lawsuits allege that
patients at Raleigh General Hospital underwent unnecessary
interventional cardiology procedures.  Through September 30, 2016,
one additional patient has notified Raleigh General Hospital that
he intends to file a lawsuit against the hospital.

The lawsuits identified above variously seek compensatory and
punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other available
damages.  Additional claims, including claims involving patients
to whom the Company did not send notice, have been threatened and
may be asserted against the Company or the hospital.  Any present
or future claims that are ultimately successful could result in
the Company and/or the hospitals being found liable and the
government investigations may also result in damages, fines and
penalties.  Such liability, damages and penalties could be
material.

The Company accrues an estimate for a contingent liability when
losses are both probable and reasonably estimable.  The Company
reviews its accruals each quarter and adjusts them to reflect the
impact of developments, advice of legal counsel and other
information pertaining to a particular matter.  During the nine
months ended September 30, 2016, the Company recorded an accrual
for loss contingencies for cardiology-related lawsuits, which
resulted in a net expense of $24.7 million, $15.5 million net of
income taxes, or $0.35 loss per diluted share.

LifePoint owns and operates community hospitals, regional health
systems, physician practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute
facilities.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Youth Justice Coalition, Peter Arrellano, Jose Reza, for
themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals v. City of Los Angeles, Mike Feuer, Charlie Beck, and
Does 1 through 10, in their official and individual capacities,
Case No. 2:16-cv-07932 (C.D. Cal., October 25, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act.

City of Los Angeles is a Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.

Mike Feuer is the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles.

Charlie Beck is the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Youth Justice Coalition, Peter Arrellano, Jose Reza are pro se
plaintiffs.


LOVE MY CAR: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henri Alexander Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals v. Love My Car Carwash, Inc., Antoine Haddad
a/k/a Tony Haddad, and Robert Haddad, Case No. 8:16-cv-03522-GJH
(D. Md., October 24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a car shop located at 19600 Walter Johnson
Road, Germantown, MD 20874.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
      519 H Street NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 803-6083
      Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
      E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in
the litigation relating to products liability, Lumber Liquidators,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude expert
reports and testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to
deconstructive testing are pending before the Eastern District of
Virginia.

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde
emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the
"Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and various damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the
plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class
actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from the
Company in these class actions.

On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and
consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional
transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to
the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any
newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court and ultimately, the Company expects all federal class
actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly
filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In
re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the
"MDL").

Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring
products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of
consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied
warranty under California law.

Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First
Amended Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which
they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The
Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent
misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred
as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion.

The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class
allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The
Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims
made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed
and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde
class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for
personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect
any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual
basis. Fact discovery has closed and expert discovery is now
proceeding in this matter.

On August 1, 2016, Lumber Liquidators, Inc. filed a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' First Amended Representative
Complaint in the MDL and filed a motion to exclude expert reports
and testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to deconstructive
testing.  Both motions are currently pending before the Eastern
District of Virginia.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in
North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an
extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species,
engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $26MM Settlement Up for Nov. 17 Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
settlement of the securities litigation is subject to further
consideration at the settlement hearing scheduled to be held on
November 17, 2016 and to several contingencies including final
court approval.

On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a
securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder,
former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief
Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer
(collectively, the "Kiken Defendants").

On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust
("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and President and its former Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the
Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants").

On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with
the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action
as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
(the "Securities Class Action Litigation").

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements
that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead
plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements
or omissions related to their compliance with the Lacey Act, the
chemical content of certain of their wood products, and their
supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not
quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but, on December 21,
2015, the court denied this motion.

On April 27, 2016, the Defendants entered into an agreement in
principle, a Memorandum of Understanding ("Securities Class Action
MOU"), with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action. On June 15, 2016, the Company entered into a
definitive settlement agreement (the "Securities Class Action
Stipulation") and, on July 7, 2016, the court entered an order
granting preliminary approval for the Securities Class Action
Stipulation.

The terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation were
consistent with those of the Securities Class Action MOU. Under
the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company,
through its insurers, will contribute $26,000,000 to a settlement
fund that will be used to compensate individuals who purchased the
Company's shares during the period from February 22, 2012 to
February 27, 2015.

In addition, under the terms of the Securities Class Action
Stipulation, the Company will issue 1 million shares of its common
stock to the settlement fund with a value of approximately
$19,670,000 based on the $19.67 closing price of the Company's
common stock on September 30, 2016.

The Company has classified the loss contingency of $45,670,000 as
accrued securities class action and the expected insurance
proceeds of $26,000,000 as insurance receivable on the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. The amount of
loss associated with the issuance of shares of common stock as a
part of the settlement will be determined based on the trading
value of the shares on the date of issuance, which could increase
the recognized loss if the trading value increases or result in a
gain if the trading value decreases.

The Company will record the fair value of the expected number of
shares to be issued in its condensed consolidated balance sheet
based on the closing price of its common stock as of the reporting
date until the liability is settled. The Company recorded an
expense of $4,250,000 within selling, general and administrative
expense during the third quarter of 2016 to reflect the increase
in the closing price of the Company's common stock between June
30, 2016 and September 30, 2016.

The settlement is subject to further consideration at the
settlement hearing scheduled to be held on November 17, 2016 and
to several contingencies including final court approval. There can
be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved
or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The ultimate
resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition and results of operations.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in
North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an
extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species,
engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Proceeding in "Gold" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
discovery in the class action lawsuit by Dana Gold is now
proceeding.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is
defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint
that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold,
"Gold Plaintiffs").

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding
a hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court
dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain
omission-based claims to proceed.

Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16,
2015, and then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016. In
the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that the
Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair
competition by falsely representing the quality and
characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo
Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification
of a class of individuals in the United States who purchased the
Bamboo Product, as well as seven state subclasses of individuals
who are residents of California, New York, Illinois, West
Virginia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and
purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household
use. Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold
Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company's actions
violate the law and that the Company is financially responsible
for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief
requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo
Product installed in structures owned by the purported class
members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge,
for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of its
profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo
Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the
purported class members.

The Company filed its answer to the Third Amended Complaint on
February 3, 2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding.

The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in
North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an
extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species,
engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork.


MASTERCARD INC: Deposition Discovery to Commence in December 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that deposition
discovery in the U.S. Interchange Litigation is scheduled to
commence in December 2016.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to
assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.

Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards,
Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
included a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016,
the court of appeals vacated the class action certification,
reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the
district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals'
ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement. Mastercard had anticipated that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. Mastercard has executed settlement
agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes
these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the
court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these
matters (except for one state court action in New Mexico) in front
of the same federal district court that approved the merchant
class settlement.

In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a
claim. Deposition discovery in these actions and the class action
is scheduled to commence in December 2016.


MASTERCARD INC: Trial in British Columbia Case Set for Sept. 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the
Canadian Interchange Litigation, several of the merchants' claims
in the British Columbia case have been allowed to proceed on a
class basis, and a trial date has been set for September 2018.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's
favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.

In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages
in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory
damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and
various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act.

The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages
in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs. The Quebec suit was later amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario suits.

Additional purported class action complaints have been commenced
in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those
in the British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec suits.

With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) several of the
merchants' claims in the British Columbia case have been allowed
to proceed on a class basis, and a trial date has been set for
September 2018, (2) the class certification hearing in the Quebec
suit is scheduled for November 2017 and (3) the Ontario,
Saskatchewan and Alberta suits are temporarily suspended while the
British Columbia suit proceeds.


MASTERCARD INC: Facing U.K. Consumers Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a proposed
collective action has been filed in the United Kingdom on behalf
of U.K. consumers seeking damages for intra-EEA and domestic U.K.
interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by
merchants between 1992 and 2008.

In July 2015, the European Commission issued a Statement of
Objections related to Mastercard's interregional interchange fees
and central acquiring rules within the European Economic Area. The
Statement of Objections, which follows an investigation opened in
2013, includes preliminary conclusions concerning the
anticompetitive effects of these practices. The European
Commission has indicated it intends to seek fines if these
conclusions are subsequently confirmed. Although the Statement of
Objections does not quantify the level of fines, it is possible
that they could be substantial. In April 2016, Mastercard
submitted a response to the Statement of Objections disputing the
Commission's preliminary conclusions and participated in a related
oral hearing in May 2016.

In the United Kingdom, beginning in May 2012, a number of
retailers filed claims or threatened litigation against Mastercard
seeking damages for alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect
to Mastercard's cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and
Ireland domestic interchange fees (the "U.K. Merchant claimants"),
with claimed purported damages exceeding $1 billion. The U.K.
Merchant Claimants (including all resolved matters) represent
approximately 40% of Mastercard's U.K. interchange volume over the
relevant damages period. Additional merchants have filed or
threatened litigation with respect to interchange rates in Europe
(the "Pan-European claimants") for purported damages exceeding $1
billion.

In June 2015, Mastercard entered into a settlement with one of the
U.K. Merchant claimants for $61 million, recorded as a provision
for litigation settlement. Mastercard has submitted statements of
defense to the remaining retailers' claims disputing liability and
damages. Following the conclusion of a trial for liability and
damages for one of the U.K. merchant cases, in July 2016, the
tribunal issued a judgment against Mastercard for damages.

Mastercard has sought permission from the court to appeal this
judgment. Mastercard recorded a litigation provision of $107
million in the second quarter of 2016, that includes the amount of
the judgment and related legal fees and costs. In October 2016, a
liability hearing concluded in a separate action brought on behalf
of 11 merchants.  If liability is found in this action, the
hearing related to damages is not scheduled to start until early
2018.

With respect to the remaining U.K. Merchant claimants'
litigations, Mastercard believes that it is reasonably possible
that it could incur a loss and estimates the lower end of a
negotiated settlement could result in a loss of approximately $300
million. This revised estimate involves significant judgment and
may change from time to time due to the varying stages of the U.K.
Merchant claimants' litigations, the filing of claims by
additional U.K. merchants, progress in settlement negotiations and
the potential uncertainty of numerous unresolved legal issues. As
such, subsequent progress in negotiations and/or decisions by
courts could increase or decrease this estimate. The above
estimate relates only to potential settlements, and Mastercard
cannot estimate the potential liability, if any, if the remaining
U.K. Merchant claimant litigations are litigated to a final
decision. At this time, Mastercard is unable to estimate a
probable loss for the matters, if any, and accordingly has not
accrued for any loss.

In September 2016, a proposed collective action was filed in the
United Kingdom on behalf of U.K. consumers seeking damages for
intra-EEA and domestic U.K. interchange fees that were allegedly
passed on to consumers by merchants between 1992 and 2008. The
complaint, which seeks to leverage the European Commission's 2007
decision on intra-EEA interchange fees, claims damages in an
amount that exceeds œ14 billion (approximately $18 billion). The
court has scheduled a case management conference for November
2016.


MASTERCARD INC: High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Dec. 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S.
Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from Mastercard and its co-
defendants in the ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints
for December 2016.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine
the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate.

Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions
processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that
are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other
networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and
sent the case back for further proceedings.

In March 2016, certain of the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators
Complaint filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the nondiscrimination rules pending
the outcome of the litigation. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to hear oral arguments from Mastercard and its co-
defendants in both cases, which is scheduled for December 2016.


MASTERCARD INC: Late 2017 Trial for EMV Suit v Network Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S.
Liability Shift Litigation against the Network Defendants is now
proceeding with a trial currently scheduled for late 2017.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.

Plaintiffs allege the damages would be the value of all
chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of
the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek
treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction
against future violations of governing law, and the defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. The case against the Network Defendants is
now proceeding with a trial currently scheduled for late 2017.


MCCORMICK & CO: "Holve" Suit Alleges False Ad of Natural Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN HOLVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., a Maryland Corporation,
Case No. 6:16-cv-06702 (W.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), alleges that
Defendant has unlawfully, fraudulently, unfairly, misleadingly,
and/or deceptively represented that several varieties of its
McCormick spice and seasoning products are "Natural," when they
are not natural because they contain synthetic, artificial, and/or
genetically modified ingredients.

McCormick & Company, Incorporated --
http://www.mccormickcorporation.com/-- manufactures, markets, and
distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other
flavorful products to the food industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     George V. Granade, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Fax: (212) 253-4272
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
             ggranade@reesellp.com

        - and -

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
     5400 S. University Drive
     Davie, FL 33328
     Phone: (954) 889-3359
     E-mail: jeggnatz@ELPLawyers.com

        - and -

     David M. Kaplan, Esq.
     DAVID M. KAPLAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     401 Penbrooke Dr., Bldg. 2, Ste. B
     Penfield, NY 14526
     Phone: (585) 330-2222
     Fax: (585) 445-6767
     E-mail: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com


MCDONALD'S: Settles Franchise Workers' Wage Case for $3.75MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Sudhin Thanawala, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
McDonald's has agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a federal
lawsuit that sought to hold the company liable for allegations
that a franchise owner in the San Francisco Bay Area cheated
hundreds of workers out of wages and overtime.

A lawyer for the workers on Oct. 31 called the settlement
agreement filed in court Oct. 28 a historic victory for hundreds
of workers but the company said it settled to avoid ongoing legal
costs.

The lawsuit filed in 2014 in federal court in San Francisco is
among several suits in recent years that have sought a court order
designating McDonald's as the joint employer of workers at its
franchise restaurants.

Franchised locations account for the vast majority of McDonald's
more than 14,000 U.S restaurants.

Joint employer status would make the company and not just
franchisees responsible for working conditions at restaurants.

The National Labor Relations Board is also arguing that McDonald's
should be considered a joint employer in a separate and closely
watched case over claims McDonald's workers were subject to
retaliation for taking part in protests and strikes seeking wages
of $15 an hour and a union.  A trial in that case began in March
in New York.

A judge in the San Francisco suit ruled last year that McDonald's
was not a joint employer.

But he opened a different path that could be used to hold
McDonald's liable for the alleged labor violations of the
franchise owner by allowing the workers to argue they believed
McDonald's was their employer.

Joe Sellers, an attorney for the workers, said on Oct. 31 that the
$3.75 million settlement was "historic" because it marked the
first time that McDonald's committed to paying workers for labor
violations in a franchisee-operated store.

McDonald's spokeswoman Terri Hickey said in a statement that the
company reached a settlement to avoid the costs and disruption of
continued litigation.

"As this court previously ruled, McDonald's is not a joint
employer of its independent franchisees' employees," she said.
"With this agreement, McDonald's reconfirms that it is not the
employer of or responsible for employees of its independent
franchisees."

The lawsuit alleged workers at the five Bay Area McDonald's
franchises did not receive all their earned wages through
September 2013, overtime for overnight shifts, required meal
periods and rest breaks and reimbursement for time and money spent
ironing and cleaning their uniforms.

It accused McDonald's of controlling the terms and conditions of
employment at the franchises in part by insisting that the owner
strictly monitor and curtail labor costs.

Sellers said more than 800 workers will benefit from the
settlement.  Attorneys previously reached a settlement with the
franchise owner.

Eligible workers will be compensated based on the number of hours
they worked -- calculations that have yet to be completed.


MDL 2743: 16 Abrasion Suits Transferred to Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
MDL Panel issued an order transferring and consolidating 16 of the
federal abrasion class actions to the district court in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

"We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Virginia is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Lumber
Liquidators is based in this district in Toano, Virginia, and
relevant documents and witnesses likely will be found there. We
are confident that Judge Anthony J. Trenga, who presides over
MDLNo. 2627, which involves allegedlyinappropriate emissions of
formaldehyde from the same laminate flooring and some of the same
plaintiffs as here, will steer this litigation on a prudent
course," said the Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chair of the Panel on
Multi-District Litigation.

On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and two amended complaints
were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs")
sought to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the
United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate
flooring products from Defendant for personal use in their homes,"
or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California,
North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut,
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and
Louisiana.

The products that are the subject of these complaints are part of
the same products at issue in the MDL. The SAC alleges violations
of each of these states' consumer protections statutes and the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied
warranty and fraudulent concealment. The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs
did not quantify any alleged damages in the SAC but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, sought an order certifying the
action as a class action, an order adopting the Abad Abrasion
Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the Abad Abrasion
Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an order appointing
their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting the
Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring
products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution of all
monies it received from the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs and class
members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and
punitive damages.

The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and
the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The
court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the
California plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs) and ordered that all the non-California
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Non-California Abrasion
Plaintiffs") be dropped from the action with leave to re-file.
Many of the Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs re-filed separate
complaints in the Central District of California within the
required 60-day period, which were then transferred to the
district court located in the place of residence of each Non-
California Abrasion Plaintiff. These complaints included similar
causes of action and sought similar relief as those of the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and
consolidating sixteen of the federal abrasion class actions to the
Virginia Court. In a subsequent conditional transfer order, the
MDL Panel transferred other cases to the Virginia Court. The
Company will seek to have any additional related cases transferred
and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in
the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation.

The Company disputes the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs' and the Non-
California Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend these
matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

The cases are:

Central District of California
ABAD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:15!3795

Middle District of Florida
GREEN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 8:16!2142

Northern District of Georgia
WEBSTER v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16!260

Western District of Kentucky
HENSLEY v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!534

Western District of Louisiana
GOODLING v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!1201

District of Massachusetts
KUNICKI v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16!11705

Eastern District of Missouri
DUNKIN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16!1347

Southern District of Mississippi
BOLIN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!00590

District of Nevada
RYAN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!1978

District of New Jersey
MANZO v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!5112

Eastern District of New York
HOTALING, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!4646

Western District of North Carolina
BENNETT v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 1:16!281

Northern District of Ohio
LEONARD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 1:16!2091

Eastern District of Oklahoma
STRONG v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 6:16!357

Western District of Pennsylvania
MCPHERSON v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!1263

Southern District of West Virginia
JACKSON v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!07947

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in
North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an
extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species,
engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork.


MID-AMERICAN: "Donner" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2492
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned GEOFF DONNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. MID-AMERICAN CONFERENCE and NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-09986 (October
3, 2016) was transferred from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois and consolidated in IN RE:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT - ATHLETE
CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION MDL No. 2492 on October 25, 2016.

The suit seeks to obtain redress for all persons allegedly injured
by Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Ball State University student-athletes.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including in the MAC and
the football program at Ball State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


MIDWEST EXCHANGE: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Serafina Ortiz and Rosa Rogel, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Midwest
Exchange Enterprises, Inc., Alejandro Casillas, and Nina Casillas,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09951 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a plastics recycling manufacturing company
in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459


MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Overruled Demurrer in "Schneider"
--------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a California court
has overruled the demurrer to a corrected consolidated complaint.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation.

The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of all persons who purchased the Company's securities issued
pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and
the June 12, 2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert
claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks among other things,
compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated
complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as
defendants. On August 8, 2016 the Company filed a demurrer to the
corrected consolidated complaint.  The court overruled the
demurrer on October 4, 2016. The Company intends to defend this
litigation vigorously.

MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries provides a
purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables enterprises to
manage and secure mobile applications, content and devices while
providing their employees with device choice, privacy and a native
user experience.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Remand Securities Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a Delaware
court has denied plaintiffs' motion to remand a Securities class
action lawsuit.

On April 15, 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle,
against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive
officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and
the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's
common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering").

The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of
New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting
of all purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and
prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein,
for the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due
to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with
the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

In May 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of
removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware.
In September 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, related to this matter.

MoneyGram offers products and services under its two reporting
segments: Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tentative Deal Reached in Suit v. TalentBin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a tentative
settlement has been reached to resolve all remaining claims in a
class action lawsuit against TalentBin, Inc.

On or about October 12, 2015, TalentBin, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, was served with notice of a purported consumer class
action for allegedly assembling, scoring and sharing candidate
profiles in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
("ICRAA"). The lawsuit, entitled Eric Halvorson, et. al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15 548270), was brought in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. On or about November 2015, the action was removed to
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
(Case No. 3:15-cv-05166).

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, statutory penalties of between one hundred
and one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages and other
costs and attorney's fees. On February 23, 2016, the ICRAA claims
were dismissed voluntarily.

Pursuant to a term sheet executed on or about August 9, 2016, a
tentative settlement was reached to resolve all remaining claims
subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and approval
of the Court. The Company accrued $900,000 related to the
settlement term sheet as of September 30, 2016.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. has operations that consist of two
reportable segments: Careers-North America and Careers-
International. Revenue in the Company's segments is primarily
earned from the placement of job advertisements on the websites
within the Monster network, access to the Monster network of
online resume and social profile databases, recruitment media
services and other career-related services. The Company's segments
provide online services to customers in a variety of industries
throughout North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Dagut and Gordon Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the Gordon and Dagut class action lawsuits.

In September 2016, three putative class actions were filed against
the Company and its officers and directors. The first two, Litwin
vs. Monster Worldwide, Inc., et. al., 16-cv-11844 and Dagut vs.
Monster Worldwide, Inc., et. al., 16-cv-11852, were filed in the
Federal District Court of Massachusetts. The third matter, Gordon
vs. Giambastiani, et. al., CA No. 12746-VCG, was filed in the
Delaware Chancery State Court. Each alleges material misstatements
or omissions contained in the Company's Schedule 14D-9 associated
with Randstad North America, Inc.'s tender offer for the Company's
shares.

The Gordon matter further alleges that the Company's Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things,
engaging in a flawed deal process and agreeing to an insufficient
share price. The respective Plaintiffs in all three matters seek,
among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
tender offer, or in the alternative, rescission, rescissionary and
other damages, as well as various costs and fees including
attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff in the Gordon case voluntarily withdrew Plaintiff's
request for expedited discovery and has not moved for a
preliminary injunction.

In addition, the Plaintiff in the Dagut matter withdrew
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction after the Company
agreed to further amend its disclosures in its Schedule 14D-9
regarding the Company's discretion to pay additional amounts to
its financial advisor.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters and is
currently unable to estimate any potential losses.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. has operations that consist of two
reportable segments: Careers-North America and Careers-
International. Revenue in the Company's segments is primarily
earned from the placement of job advertisements on the websites
within the Monster network, access to the Monster network of
online resume and social profile databases, recruitment media
services and other career-related services. The Company's segments
provide online services to customers in a variety of industries
throughout North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region.


N&M COOLING: "Garcia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. N&M COOLING AND HEATING, INC. d/b/a COOL TODAY, Case No. 8:16-
cv-03026-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover
from Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant operates a HVAC, plumbing and energy business serving
southwest Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, #600
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Sullivan" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Thomas Sullivan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pac-12 Conference
and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02646, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09995 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

Pac-12 Conference is a collegiate athletic conference that
operates in the Western United States.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Tolbert" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Antjuan Tolbert, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sun Belt
Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:16-cv-02649, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10000 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

Sun Belt Conference is a collegiate athletic conference that has
been affiliated with the NCAA's Division I

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Towe" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Eric Towe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mid-American Conference
and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02629, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09983 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

Mid-American Conference is a National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) Division I collegiate athletic conference with
a membership base in the Great Lakes region.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Washington" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Eric Washington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big 12 Conference
and The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02358, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09981 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

Big 12 Conference is a ten-school collegiate athletic conference
headquartered in Irving, Texas.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William E. Winingham, Esq.
      WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
      2859 North Meridian Street
      Indianapolis, IN 46208
      Telephone: (317) 920-6400
      Facsimile: (317) 920-6405
      E-mail: winingham@wkw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Williams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Chad Williams, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-02622, was transferred from
Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-09982 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Wysocki" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Charles Wysocki, indvidually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Coast
Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:16-cv-02652, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09982 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

Atlantic Coast Conference is a collegiate athletic conference in
the United States of America in which its fifteen member
universities compete in the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA)'s Division I.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com


NCR CORP: Faces "Pederson" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC PEDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NCR CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case
No. 4:16-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2016), alleges that
Plaintiff was misclassified as exempt from the requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  This Complaint also challenges alleged
systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of
the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage order against Non-
Exempt Project Leader of Defendants.

NCR CORPORATION -- https://www.ncr.com/ -- is an American computer
hardware, software and electronics company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NIDO CAFFE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS MARTINEZ a/k/a SANTOS MARTINEZ NAJARRO and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. NIDO
CAFFE 110 LLC d/b/a NI.DO. CAFFE & MOZZARELLA BAR, DAIAN
ESCALANTE, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-24538-JAL (S.D. Fla., October
31, 2016), alleges that Defendants have employed several other
similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid
overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

NIDO CAFFE 110 LLC d/b/a NI.DO. CAFFE & MOZZARELLA BAR, owns
approximately two other restaurants in the South Florida areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. to Hold Oral Argument on Dec. 8
-------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hold oral argument on a class
action appeal on December 8, 2016.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972.

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute.

"This motion was denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court
litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review. The
Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument on December 8, 2016,"
the Company said.

Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized
experience for each listeners wherever and whenever they want to
listen to music.


PANDORA MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Sheridan Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuits by Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan remains pending.

The Company said, "On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan, et al. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media,
Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleges common law misappropriation,
unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the
Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court
action pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in
Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar
allegations."

"On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed
a second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the
federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of
New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust
enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the
public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February
15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties'
stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second
Circuit's review of Sirius XM's appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al.
v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations.

"On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a
third class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal
district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion,
and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe
royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a
motion to dismiss and a motion to stay the case pending the Second
Circuit's decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion
to dismiss remains pending.

"On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a
fourth class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the
federal district court for the District of New Jersey. The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora
filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the
Second Circuit's decision. On March 16, 2016, the district court
granted the motion to stay. The motion to dismiss remains
pending."

Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized
experience for each listeners wherever and whenever they want to
listen to music.


PANDORA MEDIA: Suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action
by Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. pending the Ninth Circuit's
review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media,
Inc., which involves similar allegations.

On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a
class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal
district court for the Southern District of California.

The Company said, "the complaint alleges common law copyright
infringement, violation of the California Civil Code,
misappropriation, unfair business practices and conversion arising
from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance
of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On
October 5, 2016, the district court transferred the case to the
federal district court for the Northern District of California."

"On October 21, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation
to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit's
review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media,
Inc., which involves similar allegations."

Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized
experience for each listeners wherever and whenever they want to
listen to music.


PIRIPI VMP: "Shkolnik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dmitry Shkolnik, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Piripi VMP, LLC d/b/a 320 Gastrolounge, J & E Entertainment Group,
LLC and Eric Corro, Ricardo Wilson and Agustin Abalo, Case No.
1:16-cv-24467-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Seepersaud Surooj and Kowsilla Surooj, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries, Inc.,
Scott W. Wine, and Michael T. Speetzen, Case No. 0:16-cv-03599-
PAM-JSM (D. Minn., October 24, 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.

Polaris Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries design, engineer,
manufacture, and market offroad vehicles, snowmobiles,
motorcycles, and other vehicles for sale in the United States,
Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
      June P. Hoidal, Esq.
      Devon C. Holstad, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com
              June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com
              Devon.Holstad@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, 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: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              RProngay@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
      E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


RIPE JUICE: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Rivas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Ripe Juice Bar & Grill, Freshark Franchise Corp., Peter
Kambitsis, Elias Kalogiros, and Gabriel Olivera, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05935 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a health food restaurant located at 70-13
Austin St, Forest Hills, NY 11375.

Roberto Rivas is a pro se plaintiff.


SC MAINTENANCE: "Laguerre" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GIENECE LAGUERRE, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, v. SC MAINTENANCE, INC., a Florida corporation, and
STEVEN S. CLEMENTS, an Individual, Case No. 8:16-cv-03031-SCB-AAS
(M.D. Fla., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid back
wages, minimum wages, overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SC MAINTENANCE, INC. had two or more employees handling, selling
or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in
or produced for commerce, such as cleaning equipment, chemicals
and cleaning supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: 407-236-0946
     Fax: 407-867-4791
     E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


SHANGHAI YINLING: Faces "Siegmund" Suit Over Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Siegmund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Xuelian Bian, Wei Guan, Sidley Austin LLP,
Shanghai Yinling Asset Management Co., Ltd., Leading First Capital
Limited and Leading World Corporation, Case No. 0:16-cv-62506-FAM
(S.D. Fla., October 24, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public
shareholders of Linkwell Corporation, to enjoin the acquisition of
Linkwell by Shanghai Yinling Asset Management Co., Ltd., through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Shanghai Yinling Asset Management Co., Ltd. is a Chinese
investment company with a principal business in Shanghai, China.

Linkwell Corporation is engaged in the development, manufacture,
sale and distribution of disinfectant health care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Fischler, Esq.
      FISCHLER & FRIEDMAN, P.A
      1000 South Andrews Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 763-5778

         - and -

      Charles J. Hecht, Esq.
      Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      E-mail: hecht@whafh.com
              brown@whafh.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss "Sousa" Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a shareholder class action remains pending.

On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company
and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants").

On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the District of New Jersey by four other purported
shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the
District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff
(the "Plaintiff").

The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to March 24,
2015, and seeks unspecified damages. The principal allegation
contained in the Complaint is that the Defendants made misleading
forward-looking statements concerning the Company's fiscal first
quarter of 2015 financial performance.

On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the
"Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed his
opposition to the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and the
Company filed a reply to the Motion to Transfer on October 13,
2015.

On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey granted the
Company's Motion to Transfer. Thus, this case will now be
litigated in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10657-GAO). On May 4,
2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"), which is now the operative complaint in this
litigation.

On June 20, 2016, the Company and the other Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss")
and on July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss.

The Company filed its reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss on August 15, 2016.  The Company believes that
the Defendants have meritorious defenses to the allegations made
in the Amended Complaint and does not expect the results of this
suit to have a material effect on its business or consolidated
financial statements.

Sonus Networks is a provider of networked solutions for
communications service providers (e.g., telecommunications,
wireless and cable service providers) and enterprises to help them
advance, protect and unify their communications and improve
collaboration.


SONY INTERACTIVE: "Moschitti" Alleges Defect in PlayStation 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC MOSCHITTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and SONY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:16-cv-06182-JSC (N.D. Cal.,
October 26, 2016), arises from Sony's alleged concealment of a
material manufacturing defect that ultimately causes disc drives
in the PlayStation 4 to eject in an infinite loop, rendering the
disc drive useless for its intended purpose.

Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC is a multinational video game
developer, product manufacturer and research and development
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     David C. Wright, Esq.
     MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
     2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
     Redlands, CA 92374
     Phone: (909) 557-1250
     Fax: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
             dcw@mccunewright.com

        - and -

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
     555 Lancaster Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (610) 200-0580


STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Class Action in Texas Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the Verde class action lawsuit in
Texas.

The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et
al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM.  The
plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and
others on March 26, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company
was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution,
and sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a
Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006.  Plaintiff alleges
that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification
provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of
performing its intended function.  The putative class consists of
all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles
model years 1997-2007 equipped with the subject CD.  Plaintiff
seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the
putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing
the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1997-2007.  Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.
In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1,000 per person.  A hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification was held on November
16, 2015, and the United States District Court has not yet ruled
on class certification.

On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company's
motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's
indemnification claim; that ruling was later adopted by the United
States District Court.

Stoneridge is a global designer and manufacturer of highly
engineered electrical and electronic components, modules and
systems for the automotive, commercial, motorcycle, off-highway
and agricultural vehicle markets.


STONERIDGE INC: Still Defends "Royal" Class Action in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case
captioned, Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma, Case No. 5:14-cv-01410-F.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company,
Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company was involved in the vertical
chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was
incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiffs between
1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied
warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc.  The putative class consists of all owners
of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various
Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles
manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than
one million vehicles.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of economic loss
damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly
defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks
in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and
the putative class members is unknown.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in
part the Company's and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.'s motions
to dismiss, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs' five claims
against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the United States
District Court's ruling, which was denied.

The Company is vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs'
allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as
well as class action certification. The Company believes the
likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and
therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at
September 30, 2016.

Stoneridge is a global designer and manufacturer of highly
engineered electrical and electronic components, modules and
systems for the automotive, commercial, motorcycle, off-highway
and agricultural vehicle markets.


STORMPROOF INC: "Melo" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO L. MELO and other similarly-situated individuals, v.
STORMPROOF INC., GONZALO A. MONTERO, and FERNANDO L. OROZCO
individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-24471-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 25,
2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

STORMPROOF INC. is a manufacturer of impact resistant doors, and
windows.  STORMPROOF, INC. also provides installations,
construction, and remodeling services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Speakes" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SPEAKES, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
MICHAEL KALB, and KALYANASUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN, Case No. 1:16-cv-
08318 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2016), alleges violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act in relation to Defendant's failure to
disclose that since 2014, Taro has colluded with other
pharmaceutical companies to keep the price of generic products
artificially high.

TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. is a pharmaceutical company
that offers prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical
products focusing on primary areas, including topical creams and
ointments, liquids, capsules, and tablets in the dermatological
and topical, cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, and anti-
inflammatory therapeutic categories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


TRAVIS BUQUET: "Mejia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MEJIA, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. TRAVIS BUQUET CONSTRUCTION, LLC, TRAVIS BUQUET HOME
BUILDERS, LLC, and TRAVIS BUQUET, Case No. 6:16-cv-01504 (W.D.
La., October 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are in the business of building residential and
commercial structures throughout the state of Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


UBER: Drivers Must be Considered Employees, British Tribunal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a British tribunal has ruled
that Uber drivers should be considered employees, not independent
contractors, and are therefore entitled to paid vacation time and
a minimum wage.

The decision is subject to appeal, which Uber says it will file.
But if upheld, it could increase the operating costs for the ride-
hailing service and encourage more legal action.

The company has run into resistance in many countries in the past,
from both regulators and taxi associations.  Some have questioned
how well it carries out background checks on its drivers and
others challenged the legality of using drivers without licenses.

Here's a look at some issues Uber has faced around the world.

FRANCE

The country banned Uber's low-cost UberPop service, in which the
drivers do not possess a taxi license, in 2014.  Taxi drivers have
protested, often violently, against the continued use of the
regular Uber service.  In June, a French court convicted and fined
Uber and two of its executives for deceptive commercial practices
and illegal business activity as UberPop continued its activities
for months after being banned.

U.S.

A federal appeals court said in September that Uber drivers for
the most part have to resolve claims against the company
individually and not through a class action lawsuit.  The ruling
came in a lawsuit by Uber drivers over the company's background
checks, but it also affects drivers in a separate suit who accuse
the ride-hailing service of exploiting them by treating them as
independent contractors instead of employees.

In August, a federal judge rejected Uber's attempt to settle
claims by drivers that the company had been exploiting them by
treating them as independent contractors instead of employees. The
settlement would have given $100 million to about 380,000 drivers.

In April 2015, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit shot a
22-year-old man who had opened fire on a group of pedestrians in
Chicago.  Court records say the man was shooting at pedestrians
who were walking in front of the Uber driver's vehicle, and the
driver shot the gunman.  The driver wasn't charged, as prosecutors
said he acted in defense of himself and others.  In June 2015,
Uber banned its drivers and passengers from carrying guns.

CHINA

Uber in September agreed to sell its China operations to local
rival Didi Chuxing, in return for a 20 percent stake in Didi.

In January 2015, the Chinese government had banned drivers of
private cars from offering their services through taxi-hailing
apps.  It then allowed them under new rules. In the spring, police
raided Uber offices, seizing thousands of iPhones and other
equipment used to run the business.  The city's transport
commission said it suspected Uber was operating an illegal taxi
service without a proper business registration.

INDIA

New Delhi banned the service temporarily in late 2014 after one of
its drivers was found guilty raping a passenger.  Uber was found
to have failed to carry out proper background checks on the
drivers it hired.  The service was restored in June 2015.

GERMANY

A German court in 2015 banned Uber from offering its UberPop
service nationwide.  The ruling by a state court stems from a suit
brought by a German taxi association.

NETHERLANDS

Dutch prosecutors last year raided the Amsterdam offices of Uber,
seizing records as part of an investigation into the UberPop
service.  Prosecutors said Uber was suspected of breaching a Dutch
taxi law with its UberPop app, which a court in 2014 had ruled was
illegal.

SPAIN

A judge in 2014 ordered a halt to Uber services in Spain, saying
they represented unfair competition.  The Madrid commercial court
judge said Uber drivers lacked proper permits to transport
passengers.  In March, Uber launched a new ride service in Madrid,
called UberX, which matches riders with licensed professional
drivers.  They are not authorized to pick up fares on the street
like taxis do.

MEXICO

Taxi drivers have repeatedly protested against Uber to demand that
Mexico City authorities ban the ride service.  The drivers said
that Uber and other ride-sharing services evade the tax,
registration and safety laws that regular cabs are subject to.
Uber responded by offering Mexico City commuters free rides for a
day, with hashtags that roughly translate as "If Mexico won't
stop, Uber won't stop."


UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Hoy" Litigation Alleges Violation of ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANCE HOY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-05579-JS
(E.D. Pa., October 25, 2016), alleges violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and seeks to recover out-of-pocket
expenses allegedly incurred for lactation services that should
have been covered by the Santander Holdings USA, Inc. Flexible
Benefits Plan.

UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. is a health benefit programs
provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
     Noah Axler, Esq.
     AXLER GOLDICH LLC
     One Liberty Place, Suite 3600
     1650 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 207-2920
     Fax: (267) 319-7901
     E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com
             naxler@axgolaw.com

        - and -

     James E. Miller, Esq.
     Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Phone: (860) 526-1100
     Fax: (860) 526-1120
     E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
             lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

        - and -

     Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     One California Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 429-5272
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com

        - and -

     Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
     Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP
     401 West A Street, Suite 2550
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone (619) 235-2416
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
             csekino@sfmslaw.com


U.S. RENAL: "Holguin" Suit Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE HOLGUIN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys
General, v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES I through 250, inclusive, Case No. BC-688347 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, October 25, 2016), seeks to recoup, among
others, alleged unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

U.S. RENAL CARE, INC. -- http://www.usrenalcare.com/-- operates a
network of outpatient, home, and specialty dialysis centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSAL AUTO: "Saghatelian" Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raffik Saghatelian, as an individual; Plaintiff, vs. UNIVERSAL
AUTO GROUP dba Glendale Mitsubishi, a California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 639308 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, October 31, 2016), seeks to recover
on behalf of similar others, alleged unpaid overtime under the
California Labor Code and Wage Order.

UNIVERSAL AUTO GROUP -- http://www.universalautogroup.net/ --
deals used cars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     F. Michael Sabzevar, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF F. MICHAEL SABZEVAR
     16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818)784-1688
     Fax: (818)784-3256

        - and -

     Jason D. Ahdoot, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JASON D. AHDOOT
     16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (310)359-8340
     Fax: (310)359-0290


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Status Report Due Dec. 23 in Merkin & Smith Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a joint status
report is due to the District Court by December 23, 2016, in the
class action lawsuit by Merkin & Smith, et al.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees.

On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint.

On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration,
which the Court denied on February 4, 2014. On March 5, 2014,
Vonage appealed that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On March 26, 2014, the district court proceedings were stayed
pending the appeal. On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's ruling and remanded with
instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration.

On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for
rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February
29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the district
court's order and remanded with instructions to compel
arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition
for rehearing.

On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration. A joint status report is due to the District Court by
December 23, 2016.

Vonage Holdings Corp. is a provider of cloud communications
services for business.


WAL-MART STORES: "Maestas" Alleges False Ad of Battery Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY MAESTAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:16-at-01345 (E.D.
Cal., October 31, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged
practice of falsely advertising and selling warranties for their
car batteries that they have no intention of honoring.

WAL-MART STORES, INC. -- http://corporate.walmart.com/-- is
engaged in the operation of retail, wholesale and other units in
various formats around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST BANCORPORATION: Expects to Pay $250,000 to Settle Iowa Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that West Bank
recorded an expense of $250,000 during the quarter, which is the
amount West Bank expects to pay to settle a class action lawsuit
in Iowa.  The Company will seek preliminary court approval of the
proposed class action settlement in the fourth quarter of 2016.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County.
Plaintiffs, Darla and Jason T. Legg, asserted nonsufficient funds
fees charged by West Bank on debit card transactions were usurious
under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code and that the sequence West
Bank formerly used to post debit card transactions for payment
violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care.
Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies including injunctive
relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages,
refund of bank fees, and attorney fees.

The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4,
2014. It dismissed one of Plaintiffs' claims and found that
factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor
on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two
classes for further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse
rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court.

On January 22, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court filed two opinions
that affirmed and reversed parts of the trial court rulings. The
court reversed the trial court by holding the Iowa Consumer Credit
Code usury claim and an unjust enrichment claim should be
dismissed. Certification of classes on those claims was also
reversed. The court affirmed the trial court by holding that the
Plaintiffs could proceed with a breach of express contract claim
based on a 2006 change in debit card payment sequencing coupled
with the alleged lack of notice concerning that change.

During the third quarter of 2016, the parties to the lawsuit
participated in a mediation and reached a settlement agreement in
principle, which has not yet been finalized, executed, or approved
by the court. As part of the proposed settlement, West Bank does
not admit to any liability or wrongdoing, and the settlement
agreement would include a release of all claims brought or that
could have been brought in the lawsuit and would result in a
dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.

In the quarter ended September 30, 2016, West Bank recorded an
expense of $250,000, which is the amount West Bank expects to pay
in the settlement. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to
court approval and will require notice to be sent to class members
providing them with an opportunity to opt out of the class or
object to the settlement. West Bank will seek preliminary court
approval of the proposed settlement in the fourth quarter of 2016.


WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Orders Attorneys to Revise Spill Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in West Virginia
has ordered attorneys in a class-action lawsuit involving a
chemical spill that contaminated drinking water in West Virginia
in 2014 to revise a tentative settlement.

U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver in Charleston was critical of
the proposed deal on Oct. 31.  He said he's concerned it doesn't
make clear that West Virginia American Water Co. won't seek a rate
increase to recoup the costs of settling the lawsuit.

Judge Copenhaver says those costs must be paid by the company's
investors and stockholders, not customers who were spill victims.

Judge Copenhaver ordered the parties to return later on Oct. 31.

In January 2014, a tank at Freedom Industries in Charleston leaked
chemicals into the drinking water supply for 300,000 people,
prompting a tap-water ban for days.

Lawyers for residents and businesses allege the water company
didn't adequately prepare for or respond to the spill.


WILLBROS GROUP: Class Suit Over Financial Restatement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
vigorously defending against the remaining allegations in the
class action lawsuit related to the Company's "October 21, 2014
Press Release Announcing the Restatement of Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30,
2014."

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer.

On January 30, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint, captioned In re Willbros Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, on March 31, 2015, adding as a defendant
John T. McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had
succeeded Mr. Harl.

On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified damages and asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal controls, the
performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance with debt
covenants and liquidity, certain financial results, and the
circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part.

On July 22, 2016, the Company filed an answer to the suit denying
the remaining allegations in the case, which complain of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act regarding
internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, and
Mr. Harl's departure.

The Company is vigorously defending against the remaining
allegations, which the Company believes are without merit. The
Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Willbros is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor serving
the oil and gas and power industries with offerings that primarily
include construction, maintenance and facilities development
services.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a purported shareholder of us
filed a putative class and derivative action on behalf of us in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action named
as defendants certain members of our Board of Directors as well as
Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ), and named us as a nominal defendant.
On December 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging that the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection
with our proposed merger with Energy Transfer is false and
misleading. As relief, the complaint requested, among other
things, an injunction requiring us to make supplemental
disclosures and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On December
9, 2015, we moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety, and on March 7, 2016, the court granted our motion."

"Between October 2015 and December 2015, purported shareholders of
us filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court
of Chancery that were consolidated into a single suit on January
13, 2016. This consolidated putative class action lawsuit relates
to our proposed merger with Energy Transfer. The complaint asserts
various claims against the individual members of our Board of
Directors, including that they breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an
allegedly unfair price and by allegedly failing to disclose
allegedly material information about the merger. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an
award of costs and attorneys' fees. On March 22, 2016, the court
granted the parties' proposed order in the consolidated action to
stay the proceedings pending the close of the transaction with
Energy Transfer. The plaintiffs have not filed an amended
complaint.

"A purported shareholder filed a separate class action lawsuit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016. The putative
class action complaint alleges that the individual members of our
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, agreeing to the WPZ Merger Agreement, which purportedly
reduced the merger consideration to be received in the subsequent
proposed merger with Energy Transfer. The complaint seeks damages
and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On April 22, 2016, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint pleading substantially the
same claims for the same basic relief. On May 6, 2016, we
requested the court dismiss the lawsuit. On September 2, 2016, the
same purported shareholder filed a derivative action claiming that
the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by executing the WPZ Merger Agreement as a defensive
measure against Energy Transfer. On September 28, 2016, we filed a
Motion to Dismiss.

"Another putative class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District
Court in Delaware on January 19, 2016, but the plaintiff filed a
notice for voluntary dismissal on March 7, 2016, which the court
accepted.

"Additionally a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Oklahoma, filed January 14, 2016, that claimed that
certain disclosures about the merger violate certain federal
securities laws and that the defendants are liable for such
violations, was dismissed on April 28, 2016, for failure to state
a claim. The plaintiff, who was seeking injunctive relief,
subsequently amended his complaint. On June 16, 2016, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims in
exchange for certain supplemental disclosures, and pursuant to
which we agreed to pay the plaintiff's fees and expenses capped at
$170,000.

Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting
North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing
markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Amended Complaint Filed in Oklahoma Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs
have filed an amended complaint in the class action on behalf of
certain purchasers of Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ) units in U.S.
District Court in Oklahoma.

"On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ filed a putative
class action on behalf of certain purchasers of WPZ units in U.S.
District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants us,
WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R.
Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws
for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's intention to pursue a
purchase of us conditioned on us not closing the WPZ Merger
Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement. The complaint
seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
August 31, 2016. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss at this time."

Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting
North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing
markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks Summary Judgment in Singleton-LoGrasso
-------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole
remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers.  On March 31, 2015,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class
action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer
the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015.
The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was
denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.  On
February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015.  On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.
On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier,
individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson
Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of
Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-
selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.  On November 23,
2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which
the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21,
2015, respectively.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.  On September
21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint,
which the Company opposed.  The Court previously ordered a stay of
discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to
dismiss.

On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.  Such discovery was completed by June 1,
2016, and on March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of
decision granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough
lawsuits.  The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the
Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the
Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso
lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the
motions to dismiss.

On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by
omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5,
2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect
to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's
motion in the Windham lawsuit.  On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.

On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for
lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of
all of the consolidated cases.  The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit on August 1, 2016.

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

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and
entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and
distribution of content through various channels, including its
premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements,
pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films,
licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer
products featuring its brands.


WORLD WRESTLING: Dismissal of "Laurinaitis" Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company has moved to dismiss the complaint by Joseph M.
Laurinaitis.

On July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis,
et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K.
McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain trusts.  This
lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges,
among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among
other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),
the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and
various state Worker's Compensation laws.  This lawsuit also
alleges that the booking contracts and other agreements between
the plaintiffs and the Company are unconscionable and should be
declared void, entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages
relating to the Company's use of their intellectual property.  The
lawsuit alleges claims for violation of RICO, unjust enrichment,
and an accounting against Mr. McMahon.

The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on
October 19, 2016.  The Company believes all claims and threatened
claims against the Company in these various lawsuits are being
prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.
The Company intends to continue to defend itself against these
lawsuits vigorously.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and
entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and
distribution of content through various channels, including its
premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements,
pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films,
licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer
products featuring its brands.


WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwell Seeks to Add WCW Inc as Defendant
----------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
plainfiff in the Bagwell action has filed a motion for leave to
amend with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things,
seeks to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc.
as a defendant.

On August 9, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut entitled Marcus Bagwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  The lawsuit alleges claims
for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, C.G.S. Sec.42-110a, et seq., principally arising
from WWE's alleged failure to pay royalties for streaming video on
the WWE Network.

On September 7, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was filed along
with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things, seeks
to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc. as a
defendant.

The Company believes all claims against the Company in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue to defend itself
vigorously.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and
entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and
distribution of content through various channels, including its
premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements,
pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films,
licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer
products featuring its brands.


YAHOO INC: Faces "Savett" Suit Over Theft of Users' Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SAVETT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, v. YAHOO! INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-06152 (N.D. Cal.,
October 25, 2016), alleges that Yahoo failed to adequately
safeguard clients' personal information, resulting in the theft of
sensitive personal information of internet users in 2014.

Yahoo is an Internet company that provides Internet-based services
to hundreds of millions of users.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPTENTER, LLP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619-756-6994
     Fax: 619-756-6991
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

        - and -

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
     1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 253-6307
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             jetzel@carlsonlynch.com



                            *********

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  * * *