CAR_Public/161116.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 229




                            Headlines

2945 RESTAURANT CORP: Faces "Acevedo" Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court
3M COMPANY: Class Cert. Hearing This Month in St. John Case
3M COMPANY: Class Suit by 3 Morgan County Residents on Hold
3M COMPANY: Class Suit by Franklin County Resident Still Stayed
3M COMPANY: West Morgan-East Lawrence's Tresspass Claims Tossed

3M COMPANY: 5 Class Actions Over PFCs Filed in Colo., E.D. Pa.
3M COMPANY: 830 Lawsuits Over Bair Hugger Pending
3M COMPANY: Faces Suits Over Oral Care Products in Minn., Fla.
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Turbin" Suit in Central Dist. Cal.
ACCURIDE CORPORATION: 5 Class Suits Filed Over Crestview Deal

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Sued for Underfunding Pension Plans by $134MM
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Class Action Settlement Approved
AIR METHODS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Pricing Scheme
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Accused by "Schwartz" Suit of Violating FDCPA
AMERICAN WATER: Court Ordered Continuance of Trial Date to Dec. 5

AMERICAN WATER: WVAWC Seeks Dismissal of State Court Action
ARCHER-DANIELS: Minnesota State MDL Granted Motion to Dismiss
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss JAVELIN Merger Suit Underway
ARNOLD A. ARPINO: Faces "Rabinowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BANCORPSOUTH: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action for $24MM

BIOGEN INC: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Fraud Class Action
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces "Vasquez-Saavedra" Suit in M.D. Fla.
CALIFORNIA: Madden Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Ritenour" Suit Removed to C.D. California
CARRIZO LLC: Faces "Slamon" Suit in Middle Dist. of Pennsylvania

CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Shlomo Says
CERAMIC TILE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over Speed & Red Light Camera Violations Policy
CITIMORTGAGE INC: 11th Cir. Rejects Appeal in Mortgage Case

CLARITY SERVICES: Sued in Richmond for Misusing Credit Reports
COGNIZANT: Faces Two Class Actions in U.S. Over False Statements
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: TransCanada Removed as Defendants in Del. Suit
COMMUNITY PARKING: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
CPA GLOBAL: Run Them Sweet Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Va.

CREDIT BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Frankel Alleges
CVS PHARMACY: "O'Hern" Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to N.D. Ill.
DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Misleading Marketing Practices
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: "Hudson" Suit Moved to M.D. of Florida

EBRO NORTH AMERICA: Faces False Advertising Class Action in N.Y.
EDDIE BAUER: "Heredia" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to N.D. Cal.
EDISON INT'L: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
EDISON INT'L: Hearing This Month on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by Grand of Violating FDCPA in N.Y.

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Bethke Says
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Awaits Decision on Class Action Appeal
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Oral Argument on Venue Motions Set for Dec. 5
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Suits Underway in Various Courts
FIRST RATE STAFFING: "Njoroge" Suit Moved to C.D. of California

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Henig" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
G&K SERVICES: Minnesota Court Dismisses Merger Lawsuit
GARDEN CITY GOLF: Faces "Wiggins" Suit in E.D. New York
HCP INC: Firefighters' Pension Fund Class Suit in Early Stages
INFINITY INSURANCE: Faces "Hallums" Suit in S.D. Florida

INFOSYS: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action in Wisconsin
INLAND BANCORP: iMove Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
IOVATE HEALTH: "Daboussi" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
IRSA INVERSIONES: Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Objector to Appeal Settlement Approval

JPMORGAN CHASE: ERISA and Indirect Purchaser Suits Pending in NY
JPMORGAN CHASE: Quebec & Ontario Actions v. FX Dealers Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defending LIBOR, Other Benchmark Rate Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of Madoff Claims Under Appeal
KEITH RESTAURANT: Faces "Benitez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

KOURELI RESTAURANT: Faces "Segarra" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Greenley" Suit in D.M.N.
LENDINGCLUB: Robbins Geller Appointed Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
LOS ANGELES, CA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over HERO Loans
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing Set

MARATHON OIL: Okla. Landowners File Class Action Over Royalties
MASSACHUSETTS: Sued Over Vote Registration Cutoff Policy
MASSAGE ENVY: Sued by McKinney-Drobnis for Breach of Contract
MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Class Action Pending in Ontario
MY PILLOW: Settles Deceptive Marketing Class Action for $1MM

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Sued by Ehrnfeld in N.Y. for Violating FDCPA
NBTY INC: "Gates" Suit Seeks Moved from S.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
NEW JERSEY: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in District of New Jersey
NEW WORLD: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Magana" Suit Claims
NEW YORK: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Steinmetz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
OCH-ZIFF: Menaldi Plaintiffs Have Until Nov. 17 to Amend Suit
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Carr" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
OUTERWALL INC: Accused by "Boyer" Class Suit of Violating ADA
PETROBRAS: Wants 2nd Circuit to Narrow Investor Class Action

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Sued by Kuznetsov in N.Y. for Violating FDCPA
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Freilich" Suit Alleges Violations of FDCPA
PPL CORP: Discovery on Cane Run Claims Through 2nd Quarter 2017
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Breach of Warranty
QLT INC: Stockholder Suit in Delaware Dismissed

QLT INC: Still Defends "Steinberg" Class Action
R+L FREIGHT: Faces "Herrera" Suit in Middle District of Florida
RUCHI INDIAN: Faces "Basurto" Suit in Southern Dist. of N.Y.
RUSHMORE SERVICE: Accused by Bakon of Violating FDCPA in New York
SHAMROCK SALOON: Faces "Escobar" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

SMX LLC: Faces "Rwomwijhu" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to C.D. Cal.
STAR-MED LLC: Removes Wood Atter Class Suit to M.D. Florida
STARKIST CO: Brief in "Hendricks" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Feb 6
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Sued by Bukhbinoler for Violating FDCPA
SUNEDISON INC: "Kunz" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742

SUNEDISON INC: "Moodie" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: "Chein" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: Faces "Botelho" Suit in C.D. Cal.
TEREX CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
TULSA'S GREEN: Faces "White" Suit in Northern Dist. of Oklahoma

UNITED STATES: Faces "Venkataram" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
UNITED STATES: Faces "Smith" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Carolina
UNIVERSAL HAIR: Faces "Buendia" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
US SECURITY: Does Not Properly Pay Security Guards, Suit Claims
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Faces "Kelly" Suit in E.D. Penn.

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Nebraska Class Action Underway
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Defending Meal and Rest Breaks Action
WESTERN NATIONAL: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WESTAR ENERGY: Parties Agree to Withdraw Stockholders' Action
XENCOR INC: To Settle Remaining Claims for $2.375 Million


                            *********


2945 RESTAURANT CORP: Faces "Acevedo" Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Acevedo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, and Peace Kuta, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, commenced a purported class action lawsuit
against 2945 Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Curves Gentlemans Club, 3575
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Hush Gentlemen's Club, Louis J. Astuto, and
Dawn S. Dowd. in the New York Supreme Court, Richmond County.

The case is styled ACEVEDO, MELISSA vs. 2945 RESTAURANT CORP.,
Case No. 150520/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty., November 4,
2016).


3M COMPANY: Class Cert. Hearing This Month in St. John Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing on class
certification is scheduled for November 2016 in the St. John case.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities. In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order
staying discovery pending mediation which occurred in January
2016, but did not resolve the case and the parties continue their
negotiations. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for
November 2016.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M manages
its operations in five operating business segments: Industrial;
Safety and Graphics; Health Care; Electronics and Energy; and
Consumer.


3M COMPANY: Class Suit by 3 Morgan County Residents on Hold
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that a purported class action
lawsuit by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, remains
stayed.

In 2005, the judge in a purported class action lawsuit filed by
three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to
their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical
compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility that formerly manufactured those compounds (the Chandler
case) granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged
personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action
in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.


3M COMPANY: Class Suit by Franklin County Resident Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that a purported class action
lawsuit by a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, remains stayed.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the Stover case) seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur
utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment
sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly
contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the
State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County.

In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters,
the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on
hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in
the St. John case.


3M COMPANY: West Morgan-East Lawrence's Tresspass Claims Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that an Alabama court has granted
3M's motion to dismiss West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer
Authority's trespass claims with prejudice.

In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority
(Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M
Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint
also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint
on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors
of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five
local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water
(collectively, the "Water Utilities"). The complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on
allegations that the defendants' chemicals, including PFOA and
PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have
contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake,
and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment
processes utilized by the Water Authority.

In September 2016, the court granted 3M's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's trespass claims with prejudice, negligence claims for
personal injuries, and private nuisance claims, and denied the
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claims for property
damage, public nuisance, abatement of nuisance, battery and
wantonness.


3M COMPANY: 5 Class Actions Over PFCs Filed in Colo., E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that in September and October
2016, five purported class actions were filed against 3M and other
defendants in U.S. District Court -- three in the District of
Colorado and two in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
complaints seek unstated damages and other remedies, such as
medical monitoring, and allege that the plaintiffs suffered
personal injury and property damage from drinking water supplies
contaminated with certain PFCs used in Aqueous Film Forming Foam
at current or former airports and air force military bases located
in Colorado and Pennsylvania.


3M COMPANY: 830 Lawsuits Over Bair Hugger Pending
-------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September 30, 2016,
the Company is a named defendant in approximately 830 lawsuits
(compared to approximately 122 lawsuits at December 31, 2015),
most of which are pending in federal or state court in Minnesota,
in which the plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint
arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later
developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The complaints seek damages and
other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence,
breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design
and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent
misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations
of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade
practices and/or false advertising acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal
courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to
be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial
phase of the litigation.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief
(including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories
similar to those asserted in the MDL.

The Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the
2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of
patient warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and
maintain normal body temperature in surgical settings. No
liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company
believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at
this time.


3M COMPANY: Faces Suits Over Oral Care Products in Minn., Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that seven complaints have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and
one complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, each seeking certification of a
class action.

In September 2011, 3M Oral Care launched Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM
dental restorative material. The product was originally indicated
for inlay, onlay, veneer, and crown applications. In June 2015, 3M
Oral Care voluntarily removed crown applications from the
product's instructions for use, following reports from dentists of
patients' crowns debonding, requiring additional treatment. The
product remains on the market for other applications. 3M
communicated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well
as regulators outside the United States. 3M also informed
customers and distributors of its action, offered to accept return
of unused materials and provide refunds.

As of September 30, 2016, seven complaints have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and one
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, each seeking certification of a class action
of dentists in the United States and its territories related to
the Lava Ultimate dental crowns. The complaints allege 3M marketed
and sold defective Lava Ultimate dental crowns to dentists
throughout the country and, under various theories, seek monetary
damages (replacement costs and business reputation loss), punitive
damages, disgorgement of profits, injunction from marketing and
selling Lava Ultimate for use in dental crowns, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in one of the cases filed in the District of
Minnesota have moved the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) to transfer and consolidate all pending cases to
the District of Minnesota to be managed in an MDL proceeding
during the pre-trial phase of the litigation.

3M opposed that motion and filed a motion instead to transfer the
one case pending in the Southern District of Florida to the
District of Minnesota, where it can be consolidated with the other
seven pending cases for both pretrial and trial.

Oral argument on the MDL motion occurred in July 2016. In August
2016, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied
the plaintiff's motion to consolidate all pending cases to be
managed in an MDL proceeding for the pre-trial phase of the
litigation. The court in the Southern District of Florida granted
3M's motion to transfer the action pending there to the District
of Minnesota. All eight putative class action cases are in the
process of being consolidated into one case for both pre-trial and
trial.

In September and October 2016, two individual complaints were
filed against 3M -- one in Madison County, Illinois and the other
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The complaints allege that 3M marketed and sold defective Lava
Ultimate material for dental crowns to the plaintiffs, and under
various theories, seek compensatory damages and statutory
penalties, including attorneys' fees and costs.


ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Turbin" Suit in Central Dist. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Management
Services, Inc. The case is captioned Tashara Turbin, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Account Management Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
02269-PSG-SP (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.

Account Management provides debt recovery solutions to the
Healthcare, Consumer and Commercial markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rabin Saidian, Esq.
          SAIDIAN AND SAIDIAN
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (213) 222 8564
          E-mail: saidianlaw@gmail.com


ACCURIDE CORPORATION: 5 Class Suits Filed Over Crestview Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accuride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that since the
announcement of the proposed transaction with Crestview on
September 2, 2016, five putative class action complaints have been
filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged Accuride
stockholders. Three of these complaints were filed in state courts
in the State of Indiana, County of Vanderburgh: (i) Alexander v.
Accuride Corp., et al., filed on September 14, 2016 in Vanderburgh
Superior Court; (ii) Raul v. Adams, et al., filed on September 20,
2016 in Vanderburgh Circuit Court; and (iii) Rosenfeld v. Accuride
Corp., et al., filed on October 18, 2016 in Vanderburgh Superior
Court (collectively, the "State Actions"). Two of these complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana: (i) Jones v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on
October 20, 2016 and (ii) Suokko v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed
on October 24, 2016 (together, the "Federal Actions" and together
with the State Actions, the "Actions").

The State Actions name as defendants, among others, Accuride, the
members of Accuride's board of directors and an affiliate of
Crestview. The State Actions allege, among other things, that the
members of Accuride's board of directors, aided and abetted by,
among others, Accuride and Crestview, breached their fiduciary
duties in agreeing to the proposed transaction for inadequate
consideration and that certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
relating to the proposed transaction unfairly deter a potential
alternative transaction. The Rosenfeld action also alleges that
the members of Accuride's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material
information to stockholders in connection with the proposed
transaction.

The Federal Actions name as defendants Accuride and the members of
its board of directors. The Federal Actions allege, among other
things, that defendants violated various federal securities laws
in failing to disclose purportedly material information to
stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction. The
Federal Actions further allege violations of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
various regulations promulgated thereunder. The Actions seek,
among other things, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief
to prevent the proposed transaction from closing.

On October 18, 2016, the Vanderburgh Circuit Court and Vanderburgh
Superior Court granted the parties' joint motion to transfer the
Raul action to Vanderburgh Superior Court, and the Vanderburgh
Superior Court granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate
the Raul and Alexander actions under the caption In Re Accuride
Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

On October 25, 2016, the Vanderburgh Superior Court granted the
parties' stipulated motion for a change of venue to Marion County
Superior Court. Plaintiffs in the Rosenfeld action filed a motion
for expedited proceedings on October 24, 2016 and a motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on October
27, 2016.

On October 25, 2016, plaintiffs in the Suokko action filed an ex
parte motion for an expedited preliminary injunction hearing.

Accuride believes these claims are entirely without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the Actions.


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Sued for Underfunding Pension Plans by $134MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abe Aboraya, writing for WMFE, reports that Adventist Health
System is being sued under a class action lawsuit, alleging the
company has underfunded its pension plans by $134 million dollars.

Based in Altamonte Springs, Adventist Health System owns 46
hospitals in 10 states.  Adventist is Florida Hospital's parent
company, and is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The hospital system has a pension plan, but according to a new
lawsuit, the hospital chain hasn't been putting in enough money to
meet financial obligations.  The plaintiffs allege the hospital
needs to put $134 million into two separate pensions owed to
"thousands of employees."

That's according to standards in a federal law called ERISA, the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Adventist says that law
doesn't apply and that it's exempt as a religious organization.
"Moreover, by avoiding ERISA's requirements, [Adventist Health
System] maintains a competitive advantage over other health care
entities that comply with ERISA," the plaintiffs write in the
lawsuit.

Adventist is the latest church-affiliated hospital to get hit with
this sort of lawsuit.  By one Bloomberg estimate, 400,000 workers
could be affected nationwide, with shortfalls of up to $4 billion.

In a statement, Adventist responded, "Adventist Health System's
pension plans are well-funded and operate in the best interests of
participants.  These allegations are without merit and will be
defended.  Since this is a legal matter, we will offer no further
comment."


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the California
court has approved a class action settlement and dismissed the
action with prejudice.

In June 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. This action was subsequently related and consolidated
with two identical, follow-on complaints and is captioned Hunter
v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Shareholder Litigation, Master
File No. 534070. The consolidated complaint alleged claims under
federal securities laws that the Registration Statement which the
Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
S-1 in connection with its initial public offering in March 2014
contained false and/or misleading statements or omissions. The
consolidated action also named as defendants the investment firms
who underwrote the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
failed to disclose, among other things, product deficiencies, poor
sales, and a decline in sales-related personnel. The complaint
additionally alleged that the Company improperly recognized
revenue, including by booking certain sales with rights of return.
The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The Company advanced certain defense costs with
respect to individual defendants, including the underwriting
investment firms, under written indemnification agreements.
During mediation, the parties reached a settlement, providing for
payment to the class of plaintiffs in the amount of $5.75 million
in return for a release of all claims against the defendants,
including Aerohive and its current and former officers and
directors.

In September 2016, the Court approved the settlement and dismissed
the action with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, Aerohive paid approximately $1.22 million of the $5.75
million settlement amount (reflecting the amount remaining under
Aerohive's insurance retention), and the Company's insurance
carrier paid the remainder of the settlement amount.

Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on March 15,
2006, and, together with its subsidiaries (the "Company"), has
designed and developed a leading cloud and enterprise Wi-Fi
solution that enables customers to use the power of the Wi-Fi,
cloud, analytics and applications to transform how they serve
their customers.


AIR METHODS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
WFAA reports that Colton Lightfoot of University Park has had a
few flips and spills on his motocross bike before.  But the one
the 17-year-old suffered last May on an East Texas track became a
serious emergency.

"It was just right off the start, then crash, and then I got run
over," he said.  "That's just what I've heard.  I don't remember
anything."

But his father Royston remembers everything.

"They got him on a flat board and stabilized him," Mr. Lightfoot
said.

He will never forget the drive to the nearby hospital in Sulphur
Springs, the CT scan revealing a fractured vertebra, and a
doctor's recommendation to transport his son by air-ambulance
helicopter to a hospital in Dallas.

"Emotionally, you're a wreck," Mr. Lightfoot said.  "You see your
son or daughter fly off in a helicopter, it's not good."

The family has video of Colton lifting off in the helicopter
servicing the Sulphur Springs hospital.  At the time, his parents
were concerned about one thing -- the safety of their son.

Two weeks later, they were shocked when a bill arrived from the
air ambulance company

"My wife said, 'You are not going to believe this air ambulance
bill,'" Mr. Lightfoot recalled.  "We open it and it's $58,000."

Their insurance carrier said it would only cover $15,000 of the
74-mile flight. The Lightfoots have to pay the rest, $43,000, on
their own.

The air ambulance company, Air Methods, the nation's largest air
ambulance company, was an out-of-network medical service provider.
That means they didn't have a contract with insurance carriers
with an agreed-upon price.

Air ambulance medical services in the U.S. are unregulated and
that allows them wide discretion on charges.  When Mr. Lightfoot
Googled "Air Methods," he found out he was not alone.

"I started reading through all these (complaints) and that's when
the light went on . . . (they are taking advantage of) a
loophole," he said.

According to Dallas aviation attorney Ladd Sanger with the Dallas
law firm Slack & Davis, the practice of billing out-of-network for
air ambulance services is legal, but can be financially
devastating for patients financially unprepared for the costs.

"The air ambulance companies, because they are called out in
emergency situations, don't want to be in network with anybody
because they don't want to have their fees capped at a reasonable
and necessary level," Sanger said.

Sarah Oelke of Oklahoma City remembers when her infant son,
Garrett, was having trouble breathing hours after he was born.

"I was a little concerned," Ms. Oelke said.  "He didn't sound
great."

He needed specialized care at Children's Hospital at the
University of Oklahoma Medical Center 11 miles away.  An Air
Methods helicopter assigned to Children's Hospital was recommended
to transport her newborn.

"I'm not thinking anything about the bill to come," Ms. Oelke
said.

Her son turned out to be fine.  But the $28,000 bill came due and
has haunted her the past two years.

Insurance paid only $5,100, leaving her with a $23,000 tab. She
says she will have to take out a loan to pay.

Ms. Oelke, a nurse practitioner, believes medical providers like
Air Methods are wrong.

"Ethics, morals and informed consent are huge," she said.

Ms. Oelke is just one of eight other Oklahomans suing Air Methods,
accusing them in court documents of an "inflated pricing scheme
and refusing to discount prices to those who have no ability to
negotiate."

Her attorney, Alex Yaffe, is seeking class action status, saying
there are hundreds of former patients across the U.S. who are
being overcharged.

Another class action case alleging Air Methods overcharged
patients is pending in South Carolina.

"It's expensive, but it can be done way less expensive, and way
more efficiently than what's happening with these for-profit
companies," Mr. Yaffe said

Air Methods, and its parent for-profit company, Rocky Mountain
Holdings, declined to comment on camera due to pending litigation,
but provided WFAA-TV with this statement:

"We understand that every patient's individual, financial and
health insurance coverage circumstances are unique, and our team
is dedicated to partnering with every one of them.  Air Methods
has a charity care program in place to allow us to reduce patient
financial responsibility. Our team is here to help."

On the other end of the spectrum is Care Flight, a non-profit air
ambulance operating in North Texas.

Medical Director Robert Simonson says between $12,000 and $15,000
per trip is a normal and reasonable fee.  He says billing patients
like Lightfoot for nearly $60,000 is questionable.

"People are getting bills that are more expensive than their
hospital bills once they got to the hospital," Dr. Simonson said.
"That begs somebody to take a look at the industry and say, 'Is
this appropriate or not?'"

If you are hit with an outrageous air ambulance bill, experts say:

Try to negotiate with the air ambulance service.  Experts say the
final tab could be an inflated number that may be negotiable
If that doesn't work, consult with an attorney who has both
aviation and insurance experience.

File a complaint with the Texas Attorney General.  You are likely
not the only one receiving large bills.


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Accused by "Schwartz" Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06136 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), alleges violations
of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

American Recovery Service Incorporated, based in Thousand Oaks,
California, provides commercial accounts receivable management
services.  The Company offers various collections services, such
as demand letters; first party collections, including live
customer contact, automated customer contact, technical, and
payment processing; and third party collections, which include
initial data scrub and scoring, telephone interaction, collection
letters, credit reporting, and skip tracing; and attorney network.
The Company also provides consulting services, such as portfolio
management, risk management, and client relations; and various
legal collection and litigation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMERICAN WATER: Court Ordered Continuance of Trial Date to Dec. 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
court in the federal class action related to the West Virginia Elk
River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill has ordered a continuance
of the trial date to December 5, 2016.

                           Background

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane
methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into
the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") intake in
Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak
of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information
about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution,
and begin consultations with federal, state and local public
health officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that
the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a
joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia
Bureau for Public Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of
its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West
Virginia counties served by the KVTP. The order addressed the use
of water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not
affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection.
Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state
and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to
determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1
ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") and the EPA indicated would be protective of
public health.

Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the
continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to
help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive
demand, which could have caused additional water quality and
service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers
were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance
suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the
chemicals were at non-detectable levels remained in place. In
addition, based on saved samples taken on or before January 18,
2014, PPH/DiPPH was no longer detected in the water supply as of
January 18, 2014.

On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing
throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of
MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency
team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the
water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of
the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC continued to work with
laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of MCHM and announced on
March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the system to below this level.

To date, there are 73 pending cases against WVAWC with respect to
this matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone
and Putnam counties. Fifty-three of the state court cases naming
WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American Water Works
Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the
Company, the "American Water Defendants") were removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

On December 17, 2015, the federal district court entered orders
remanding 52 of the previously removed cases back to the West
Virginia Circuit Courts for further proceedings (two of the
previously removed cases had been dismissed in the interim).
Following that order, seven additional cases were filed against
WVAWC in West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha and Putnam
counties with respect to this matter, and on September 16, 2016,
four new individual complaints were filed against WVAWC in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County.

Additionally, investigations with respect to the matter have been
initiated by, among other agencies, the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of West Virginia, the West Virginia Attorney
General, and the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (the
"PSC"). As a result of the U.S. Attorney's Office investigation,
Freedom Industries and six former Freedom Industries employees
(three of whom also were former owners of Freedom Industries) pled
guilty to violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

The Company believes that the causes of action asserted against
the American Water Defendants in these cases are without merit.

                     Federal Court Litigation

Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the "Federal
action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who
allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and
tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of
the Freedom Industries chemical spill, on behalf of a purported
class of all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or
exposed to water contaminated with crude MCHM and provided by
WVAWC in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and
Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West
Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint
names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants,
including the American Water Defendants.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged business or
economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism for recovery
to address a variety of alleged costs, loss of use of property,
personal injury and other consequences allegedly suffered by
purported class members; punitive damages and certain additional
relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring
program to protect the purported class members from an alleged
increased risk of contracting serious latent disease.

On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion
to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal
jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and
WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses
in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015.
The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims
for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint.

On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Federal action filed a
motion seeking certification of a class defined to include persons
who resided in dwellings served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014,
persons who owned businesses served by the KVTP on January 9,
2014, and hourly employees who worked for such businesses. The
plaintiffs sought a class-wide determination of liability against
the American Water Defendants, among others, and of damages to the
three groups of plaintiffs as a result of the "Do Not Use" order
issued after the Freedom Industries chemical spill.

On October 8, 2015, the court in the Federal action granted in
part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The court certified a class addressing the alleged fault
of Eastman Chemical Company, the manufacturer of MCHM, for tort
claims and the alleged fault of the American Water Defendants for
tort and breach of contract claims, as well as the comparative
fault of Freedom Industries. However, the court granted the joint
motion by defendants to exclude certain expert testimony,
disallowing the testimony of plaintiffs' economic damages experts,
and denied class certification as to any damages, including
punitive damages. Thus, determination or quantification of
damages, if any, would be made in subsequent proceedings on an
individual basis.

On December 17, 2015, the court in the Federal action originally
entered a scheduling order that provided for the trial on class
issues to begin in July 2016. During the first week of January
2016, three additional cases were filed against one or more of the
American Water Defendants, as well as others, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with respect to
this matter.

On March 25, 2016, the court in the Federal action entered an
order extending the schedule for events through briefing related
to dispositive motions and expert challenges and noting that
further events in the case would be set by additional orders to be
issued by the court in due course. On May 10, 2016, each of the
parties in the Federal action filed motions for summary judgment
and motions to exclude experts, followed by responses on June 3,
2016 and final reply memoranda on June 16, 2016.

On July 7, 2016, the court in the Federal action rescheduled the
trial to begin on October 25, 2016, but the court delayed the
start of the trial pending ongoing settlement negotiations between
the parties, and has since granted a continuance of the trial
until December 5, 2016.

Court-directed mediations were held at the end of September 2015
and June 2016 with the assistance of private mediators.
Representatives of the American Water Defendants, Eastman
Chemical, and the plaintiffs in both the Federal action and the
state actions, as well as insurance carriers for certain of the
defendants, participated in these mediation sessions. No
resolution was reached.

On September 26, 2016, the court in the Federal action granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and its renewed motion to
dismiss all claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The court in the Federal action examined the factual claims
asserted by the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs failed to
provide any evidence that the Company committed a tortious act in
connection with the Freedom Industries chemical spill. Also, the
court in the Federal action held that it had no personal
jurisdiction over the Company, since there was no evidence of a
tortious act, and the relationship between the Company and WVAWC
was that of a typical parent and subsidiary. As a result of this
decision, the Company is no longer a defendant in the Federal
action, although the plaintiffs' claims against AWWSC and WVAWC
remain.

On September 27, 2016, the court in the Federal action denied
competing motions filed by the plaintiffs and WVAWC for summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against
WVAWC. The court in the Federal action stated that the
implementation of the Do Not Use order and the delivery of water
containing MCHM subject to such an order constituted a breach of
WVAWC's contract with customers. However, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because the court
identified genuine issues of fact to be decided by a jury with
respect to WVAWC's assertion that its contractual performance was
impracticable due to the lack of available information as to the
contaminants in the water after the Freedom Industries chemical
spill, the unexpected nature of Freedom Industries' criminal
negligence and the resulting contamination of the water supply,
and WVAWC's lack of fault for Freedom Industries' actions in
causing the chemical spill.

On October 6, 2016, the court in the Federal action granted the
American Water Defendants' motion for summary judgment related to
the members of the class comprised of hourly employees who worked
for businesses served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014. The court
stated that these class members, who were not customers of WVAWC,
did not have a "sufficiently close nexus" to WVAWC to give rise to
a "special relationship" that would allow them to recover lost
wages absent physical injury or property damage. This ruling does
not impact the remaining class members.

On October 25, 2016, the court in the Federal action dismissed all
claims against AWWSC, leaving WVAWC as the remaining American
Water Defendant in the lawsuit.

   WVAWC Binding Global Agreement in Principle to Settle Claims

On October 31, 2016, the court in the Federal action approved the
preliminary principles, terms and conditions of an agreed-upon
settlement of claims (the "Settlement") among the American Water
Defendants, and all class members, putative class members,
claimants and potential claimants (collectively, the
"Plaintiffs"), arising out of the Freedom Industries 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.

The proposed aggregate pre-tax amount of the Settlement is $126
million, of which $65 million would be paid by WVAWC, and the
remainder would be paid 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 intend to vigorously pursue their rights to
insurance coverage from these non-participating carriers for any
losses to be paid by WVAWC in 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 will
pursue mandatory arbitration against the other non-participating
carrier.

As a result of these events, WVAWC has determined that a loss
contingency with respect to this matter is probable and in the
third quarter of 2016 recorded a charge to earnings of $65 million
($39 million after-tax), comprised of the aggregate pre-tax
settlement amount of $126 million, net of insurance receivables of
$61. 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 Freedom
Industries chemical spill as well as for amounts that may be paid
by WVAWC under the Settlement.

The preliminary terms of the Settlement intend to establish a two-
tier settlement fund for the payment of claims, comprised of (i) a
guaranteed fund of $76 million, of which $51 million will be
contributed by WVAWC, including insurance deductibles, and $25
million would be contributed by one of the Company's general
liability insurance carriers, and (ii) a claims-based payment fund
of up to $50 million, of which up to $14 million would be
contributed by WVAWC and $36 million would be contributed by a
number of the Company's general liability insurance carriers.
Separately, $25 million would be contributed to the guaranteed
fund through a settlement by another defendant to the Settlement.

The Company's insurance policies operate under a layered structure
where coverage is generally provided in the upper layers after
claims have exhausted lower layers of coverage. The $36 million
contributed by a number of the Company's general liability
insurance carriers to the claims-based fund were from higher
layers of the insurance structure than the two insurance carriers
that were requested, but presently have not agreed, to participate
in the Settlement. Any recovery by WVAWC or the Company from the
non-participating carriers would reimburse WVAWC for its
contributions to the guaranteed fund.

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.

American Water Works Company, Inc.'s primary business involves the
ownership of water and wastewater utilities that provide water and
wastewater services to residential, commercial, industrial and
other customers.


AMERICAN WATER: WVAWC Seeks Dismissal of State Court Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that West
Virginia-American Water Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated class action complaint in the West
Virginia State Court Litigation.

                           Background

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane
methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into
the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") intake in
Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak
of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information
about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution,
and begin consultations with federal, state and local public
health officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that
the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a
joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia
Bureau for Public Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of
its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West
Virginia counties served by the KVTP. The order addressed the use
of water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not
affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection.
Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state
and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to
determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1
ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") and the EPA indicated would be protective of
public health.

Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the
continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to
help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive
demand, which could have caused additional water quality and
service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers
were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance
suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the
chemicals were at non-detectable levels remained in place. In
addition, based on saved samples taken on or before January 18,
2014, PPH/DiPPH was no longer detected in the water supply as of
January 18, 2014.

On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing
throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of
MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency
team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the
water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of
the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC continued to work with
laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of MCHM and announced on
March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the system to below this level.

To date, there are 73 pending cases against WVAWC with respect to
this matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone
and Putnam counties. Fifty-three of the state court cases naming
WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American Water Works
Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the
Company, the "American Water Defendants") were removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

On December 17, 2015, the federal district court entered orders
remanding 52 of the previously removed cases back to the West
Virginia Circuit Courts for further proceedings (two of the
previously removed cases had been dismissed in the interim).
Following that order, seven additional cases were filed against
WVAWC in West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha and Putnam
counties with respect to this matter, and on September 16, 2016,
four new individual complaints were filed against WVAWC in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County.

Additionally, investigations with respect to the matter have been
initiated by, among other agencies, the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of West Virginia, the West Virginia Attorney
General, and the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (the
"PSC"). As a result of the U.S. Attorney's Office investigation,
Freedom Industries and six former Freedom Industries employees
(three of whom also were former owners of Freedom Industries) pled
guilty to violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

The Company believes that the causes of action asserted against
the American Water Defendants in these cases are without merit.

               West Virginia State Court Litigation

On January 28, 2016, all of the then-filed state court cases were
referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further
proceedings. On June 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint. The second amended
consolidated class action complaint names only WVAWC as a
defendant and alleges claims of, among other things, negligence,
public and private nuisance, trespass, strict liability for
abnormally dangerous activity, breach of contract, breach of
statutory implied warranty, violation of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit Protection Act, strict liability for failure to
warn, negligent infliction of emotional distress, medical
monitoring and punitive damages.

On July 6, 2016, the defendants filed an answer in response to
these claims.

On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion
seeking certification for liability and damage classes, including
businesses and residents who were customers of the KVTP on January
9, 2014, all West Virginia persons who suffered wage loss as a
result of the Freedom Industries chemical spill and personal
injury and medical monitoring for West Virginia residents within
the affected counties that were exposed to contaminated water as a
result of the chemical spill.

On September 14, 2016, WVAWC filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaint.

On September 16, 2016, four new individual complaints were filed
in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County stating the same
claims as in the second amended consolidated class action
complaint but also seeking a judicial determination as to whether
the American Water Defendants and Eastman Chemical have insurance
coverage under their respective policies for the claims asserted
in the complaints. Plaintiffs have also sought to transfer these
complaints to the Mass Litigation Panel. The complaints include as
defendants all of the insurance carriers identified by Eastman
Chemical and the American Water Defendants. West Virginia law
generally permits plaintiffs in civil litigation to seek a
determination as to whether insurance coverage exists for claims
prior to trial on the merits.

The American Water Defendants are currently analyzing and
considering their responses to the allegations and claims raised
in these four complaints.

American Water Works Company, Inc.'s primary business involves the
ownership of water and wastewater utilities that provide water and
wastewater services to residential, commercial, industrial and
other customers.


ARCHER-DANIELS: Minnesota State MDL Granted Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, ,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court
in the Minnesota state MDL proceedings has granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaints against the Company in those
actions.

The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various
U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta
Corporation's (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of genetically
modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in
the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court action in
Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging that Syngenta was
negligent in commercializing its products before the products were
approved in China.

Second, the Company is a putative class member in a number of
purported class actions filed beginning in 2013 by farmers and
other parties against Syngenta in federal courts and consolidated
for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL)
proceeding in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, again alleging
that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims
against the Company and other grain companies seeking contribution
in the event that Syngenta is held liable in these lawsuits; the
courts dismissed these third-party claims on April 4, 2016, and
the Company is therefore no longer a third-party defendant in the
MDL.

Third, the Company and other grain companies have been named as a
defendant in numerous individual and purported class action suits
filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal court
beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, alleging that the Company
and other grain companies were negligent in failing to screen for
genetically modified corn.

On September 6, 2016, the court in the Minnesota state MDL
proceedings granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaints
against the Company in those actions. The Company denies liability
in all of the actions in which it has been named as a third-party
defendant or defendant and is vigorously defending itself in these
cases. All of these actions are in pretrial proceedings.

At this time, the Company is unable to predict the final outcome
of this matter with any reasonable degree of certainty, but
believe it will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss JAVELIN Merger Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a motion
to dismiss class action lawsuits related to the merger with
JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. is fully briefed and ripe for
ruling from the Court.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.  The Tender Offer
and Merger are collectively defined herein as the "Transactions."
All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's
board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional
defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of
JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders,
including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly
value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of
JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against
conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information
about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding
and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately
solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and
erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The
suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

On April 25, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating the
eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-
16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases
as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. The Motion to Dismiss is
fully briefed and ripe for ruling from the Court.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any
such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in
monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative
class of former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending
the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial.
Due to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not
able at this time to estimate their outcome.

ARMOUR is a Maryland corporation formed to invest in and manage a
leveraged portfolio of MBS and mortgage loans.


ARNOLD A. ARPINO: Faces "Rabinowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arnold A. Arpino &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled Jason Rabinowitz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Arnold A. Arpino & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06001 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2016).

Arnold A. Arpino & Associates provides legal services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANCORPSOUTH: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action for $24MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Seid, writing for Daily Journal, reports that some former
and current BancorpSouth customers are receiving either credit to
their accounts or checks in their mail.

In January, BancorpSouth settled a lawsuit for $24 million
involving overdraft fees the bank charged to customers from a
period beginning about 2003 to 2010 in the bank's eight-state
territory.  In Mississippi, customers who were charged two or more
overdraft fees between May 18, 2007 to Aug. 3, 2010 were part of
the settlement.

The credits and checks, varying in amount began being issued the
week of Oct. 21.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida in May 2010 by an Arkansas customer of the
bank, challenged the way BancorpSouth posted the order of debit
card and ATM transactions.  The suit said BancorpSouth posted the
transactions from higher amounts to lower amounts, rather than
chronological order.  In doing so, that sent some accounts into
overdraft status, and BancorpSouth collected an inordinate amount
of overdraft fees, the suit alleged.

BancorpSouth maintained it was following all applicable laws and
regulations and terms of its account agreements.

Nevertheless, rather than draw out the case in court, BancorpSouth
settled the suit without having to admit wrongdoing.

Any objections to the settlement were due by June 2 of this year,
and on July 15, final approval was given to the settlement.

BancorpSouth account holders have been getting credits to their
account, while former account holders are getting checks.  The
amount of the credits or checks vary, based on the number of
people in the suit and the amount of overdraft fees they paid.

People getting credits or checks received in 2013 a "Notice of
Pendency of Class Action" either through mail or email. Those who
did not opt out by the deadline were included in what is called
the "settlement class" and were part of the class action lawsuit.

"Unless you excluded yourself, you gave up the right to sue
BancorpSouth for the claims that the settlement resolves.  You
must exclude yourself from this Settlement Class in order to try
to pursue your own lawsuit," according to the settlement
administrator.

The $24 million settlement includes fees to the attorneys.  The
"class counsel" requested up to 35 percent of the money in the
settlement fund for attorneys' fees, plus reimbursement of their
expenses incurred in connection with prosecuting this case.  The
fees and expenses awarded by the court have been paid out of the
settlement fund.


BIOGEN INC: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Gibbons, writing for TheRacetotheBottom.org, reports that
in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-13189-FDS
the District Court in the District of Massachusetts held that the
complaint brought by lead plaintiff GBR Group, Ltd. on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons ("Plaintiffs") against three
Biogen executives ("Individual Defendants")(collectively,
"Defendants") did not contain sufficient allegations of scienter.

According to the complaint, Biogen sells the pharmaceutical,
Tecfidera, which was the company's core product from the third
quarter 2013 through December 2015.  In October 2014, a patient
died from progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy while using
Tecfidera ("PML Death") as part of a clinical study.  Despite the
death, Individual Defendants and Biogen made and released
statements projecting optimism. During an earnings call on October
22, 2014, Clancy stated "There is meaningful, still meaningful
growth in Tecfidera."

Plaintiffs alleged the Individual Defendants violated: Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 ("Count One"), Defendants violated: Rules 10b-5(a) and
10b-5(c) under a theory of "Scheme liability" ("Count Two"), and
Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Exchange
Act ("Count Three").  The Plaintiffs alleged the violations
occurred when Defendants made materially misleading statements and
omissions about Tecfidera, which caused class members to purchase
Biogen's stock at artificially inflated prices.

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 provides a cause
of action for certain misstatements or omissions.  To sufficiently
make out a claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) material
misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter; (3) a connection with
the purchase or sale or security; (4) reliance; (5) economic loss;
and (6) causation.  The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA") added a safe harbor for certain "forward-looking
information."  Such statements will not be actionable if
"accompanied by a meaningful cautionary statement" or not made
"with actual knowledge".  15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-5(c)(1)

In addressing the claims made by Plaintiffs, the court first
determined that a number of the alleged misrepresentation
constituted forward-looking statements.  The court found that
statements in Biogen's fourth-quarter-earnings press release and
statements by Clancy during earnings calls were accompanied by
sufficient cautionary language and therefore were protected by the
safe-harbor provision.

The court did determine, however, that Plaintiffs had sufficiently
alleged the falsity of statements suggesting that the PML death
"was having little or no negative impact on Tecfidera sales".
Although not the "only inference" that could be drawn from the
statements, the court agreed that it was "at least plausible" that
the statements were false and misleading.

As for the Section 20(a) claims, the court found the statements
made by Individual Defendants were not actionable since they did
not state a claim for an underlying violation.

Accordingly, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(b), and Section 20(a) claims.  In
Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss,
Plaintiffs conceded that the Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) claims should
be dismissed.

The primary materials for this case may be found on the DU
Corporate Governance website.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces "Vasquez-Saavedra" Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. The case is captioned Olmedo Vasquez-Saavedra,
Felix Perez Luis Robles, and Omar Martinez, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited, Inc. doing business as The Fountains Resort,
and Ken Morgan, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-
01879-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Anne C. Conway.

Bluegreen manages and markets a points-based, deeded vacation
ownership program that connects owners with Bluegreen resorts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


CALIFORNIA: Madden Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Madden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Petitioner v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of
California, et al., Case No. 16-6598 (U.S. Sup. Ct, Oct 27, 2016),
is an appeal filed before the United States Supreme Court from
lower court decisions in fraud class actions with Case No. 14-
15613 (9th Cir May 24, 2016) and Case No. 14-15680(9th Cir May 24,
2016).

California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican
border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles. Its terrain
includes cliff-lined beaches, redwood forest, the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, Central Valley farmland and the Mojave Desert.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Monica Knox, Esq.
          P.O. Box 221
          Elk Grove, CA 95759
          Telephone: (818) 395 8095


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Ritenour" Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Ritenour, et al. v.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Case No. 30-02016-00878808, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02011 to the
proceeding.

Candice Ritenour and Cheryl Weiser, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, commenced
the lawsuit over alleged labor-related issues.


CARRIZO LLC: Faces "Slamon" Suit in Middle Dist. of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrizo (Marcellus)
LLC. The case is styled James Slamon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Carrizo (Marcellus)
LLC, Reliance Marcellus II, LLC, and Reliance Holdings USA, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02187-RDM (M.D. Penn., Oct. 31,
2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Robert D. Mariani.

Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC offers oil and natural gas drilling and
exploration services. The company was founded in 2008 and is based
in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerard M. Karam, Esq.
          MAZZONI AND KARAM
          Bank Towers Building
          321 Spruce St., Suite 201
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 348 0776
          E-mail: gkaram18@msn.com

               - and -

          Peter H. LeVan, Esq.
          HANGLEY ARONCHICK
          SEGAL & PUDLIN
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568 6200
          E-mail: plevan@hangley.com

               - and -

          Shanon J Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net

Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC is represented by:

          Amy L. Groff, Esq.
          David R. Fine, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Market Square Plaza
          17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
          Telephone: (717) 231 5876
          E-mail: klgateseservice@klgates.com
                  david.fine@klgates.com

Reliance Marcellus II, LLC and Reliance Holdings USA, Inc. are
represented by:

          Justin H Werner, Esq.
          Stefanie Lepore Burt, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Ave., Ste 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288 3838
          E-mail: jwerner@reedsmith.com
                  slepore@reedsmith.com


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
granted final approval of the class action settlement.

On April 2, April 16, April 29, and May 4, 2015, purported
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of its current and former directors, executive
officers, significant stockholders and underwriters associated
with its initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuits, which were
consolidated on July 22, 2015, were brought by purported
stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class
consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant
or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with its IPO. A consolidated complaint ("Complaint")
was filed on July 23, 2015, alleging claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On September 22, 2015 the Company filed a demurrer to the
Complaint. After briefing and argument, the Court overruled the
demurrer as to Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15 and
granted with leave to amend, the demurrer to Plaintiff's claims
under Section 12(a)(2). Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint ("Amended Complaint") on November 10, 2015.

On December 10, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer to the Section
12(a)(2) claim in the Amended Complaint.

On January 28, 2016, the Court again sustained the demurrer to the
Section 12(a)(2) claim in the amended Complaint. The Amended
Complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief.

On March 28, 2016, the parties to the consolidated actions reached
a mutually acceptable resolution by way of a mediated cash
settlement. The aggregate amount of the settlement under the
agreement in principle is $9.5 million.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
13, 2016, and the Court granted final approval of the settlement
on October 28, 2016.

As a result of the settlement the Company recorded a net charge of
$2.9 million to general and administrative expense in 2016. This
amount represents the portion of settlement that was not covered
by insurance and legal fees incurred in 2016 regarding this
matter. Funds representing the Company's portion of the settlement
amount were moved to escrow in the third quarter of 2016 and the
Company expects them to be paid in the fourth quarter of 2016.

While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
litigation, the Company is satisfied with this resolution given
the risks and expenses associated with further litigation. The
Company accrues for loss contingencies when it is both probable
that it will incur the loss and when it can reasonably estimate
the amount of the loss or range of loss.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Shlomo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Shlomo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06153 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control.  The Company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York.  Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CERAMIC TILE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ceramic Tile Art, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC639250 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 1, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Ceramic Tile Art, Inc. is an installer and fabricator of marble
and ceramic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over Speed & Red Light Camera Violations Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delyn Mckenzie-Lopez and Erica Lieschke, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Chicago, Case
No. 2016-CH-14304 (Ill. Cir. Ct., November 1, 2016), seeks to put
an end on the Defendant's practice of collecting hundreds of
millions of dollars in fines and penalties from individuals
accused of speed and red light camera violations but failed to
properly notify these individuals of their alleged violations and
illegally sped up the imposition of liability.

City of Chicago is the third-most populous city in the United
States.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: 11th Cir. Rejects Appeal in Mortgage Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. McManus, Esq., Jeremy R. Singer, Esq., and Michele L.
Stocker, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that on Oct. 6, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit decided Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., --
F.3d --, 2016 WL 5845682, (11th Cir. 2016), holding that a class
action plaintiff who alleged that CitiMortgage violated New York
law by failing to timely record a satisfaction of mortgage, lacked
Article III standing because he had suffered no concrete injury.
Nicklaw is one of the 11th Circuit's first decisions applying the
U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct.
1540 (2016), and suggests that class actions will continue to be
closely scrutinized for injury-in-fact.

The Spokeo Decision

In Spokeo, Robins asserted that the defendant, a data aggregation
website, had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act case by
reporting false information about him.  Spokeo argued that the
plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he had not suffered
injury-in-fact.  The Supreme Court reaffirmed that federal
jurisdiction exists only where the plaintiff has "suffered (1) an
injury, in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision."  The Court held that an injury
must be "'an invasion of a legally protected interest'" that is
both "'concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.'"  The Supreme Court emphasized that
the plaintiff "cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by
alleging a bare procedural violation."  Instead, the "'concrete
injury must be 'de facto'; that is, it must actually exist."  It
must be "real" and not "abstract."

However, the Court recognized that a concrete injury could be
"tangible" or "intangible."  Where the alleged harm is intangible,
courts should look to whether the alleged harm has "a close
relationship to harm that has traditionally been regarded as
providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American court." In
some cases, Congress may elevate an intangible harm to the level
of a de facto harm.  The Court cautioned this "does not mean that
a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement
whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports
to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right."  A "bare
procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm," does not
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.

The Court recognized that the "risk of real harm" can satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement.  As an example, the Court pointed to
the recovery for libel and slander per se.  The Court observed
that "the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can
be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact,"
and in such cases, a plaintiff "need not allege any additional
harm beyond the one Congress has identified."  As an example, the
Court cited to injury that could arise from failure to receive
information required by law.

The Nicklaw Opinion

Nicklaw sold property in New York and used the proceeds to satisfy
a mortgage held by CitiMortgage.  New York law required
CitiMortgage to record a certificate of discharge of the mortgage
with the county clerk within 30 days after the satisfaction.
Nicklaw charged that CitiMortgage had violated this statute and
filed a class-action lawsuit seeking $500 in statutory penalties
per violation.  CitiMortgage moved to dismiss the complaint based
on lack of subject jurisdiction because the complaint did not
allege that plaintiff had suffered an injury because of the late
recording.  The district court agreed and dismissed the action.

The 11th Circuit affirmed, holding that Nicklaw had not satisfied
the injury-in-fact requirement because he had not alleged "harm"
or "a material risk of harm."  The 11th Circuit rejected two
arguments made by Nicklaw.  First, Nicklaw argued that the New
York legislature created a substantive right to have the
certificate of discharge timely recorded, and CitiMortgage had
violated that substantive right.  The Court rejected the argument,
observing that the "relevant question is whether Nicklaw was
harmed when this statutory right was violated." The Court held
that a "concrete injury" is required "even in the context of a
statutory violation."  The Court noted there were circumstances,
such as violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act through
publishing an incorrect ZIP code, that "would not work any
concrete harm."  The Court recognized there might be other
circumstances, such as incorrectly reporting criminal history,
that might "cause harm or a material risk of harm."  The 11th
Circuit had previously issued an unpublished opinion that a
violation of the right to receive certain informational
disclosures under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was
enough to satisfy Spokeo's injury requirement.1 But, the Court
found that Nicklaw had not alleged a loss of money or credit
standing.  The Court noted that he did not even allege that he
knew that the certificate of discharge had not been recorded, and
did not file the class action until over two years after filing
the satisfaction of mortgage.

Second, Nicklaw argued that New York courts had recognized
historically recognized remedies for the removal of a cloud on
title.  The Court distinguished those situations, finding they
were "a remedy to prevent the risk of harm that occurred while
title to the property was wrongfully clouded, not a remedy after
the cloud was lifted."

Conclusion

After Nicklaw, the exact contours of Spokeo's injury-in-fact
requirement remain elusive.  Other lower courts reached disparate
results on whether a class action plaintiff can allege injury-in-
fact based on a violation of New York's mortgage recording laws.
Some found the requisite injury-in-fact lacking, while others did
not.  But Nicklaw is procedurally unique, and that may limit its
utility.  The injury-in-fact argument appears to have been raised
by motion to dismiss for the first time on appeal, resulting in
the 11th Circuit's finding that, even at that late stage, Nicklaw
had failed to allege a material risk of harm.  Nicklaw confirms
that federal courts will continue to guard the courthouse doors
zealously and, even with a statutory violation, the class action
plaintiff must allege harm or material risk of harm.


CLARITY SERVICES: Sued in Richmond for Misusing Credit Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that three Virginia
consumers have asked a federal judge to certify a class action
against Florida credit bureau Clarity Services, alleging it
improperly sold their financial information to companies marketing
high-cost payday loans.

In a motion filed on Oct. 31 in federal court in Richmond, lawyers
for the consumers said Clarity's practices put consumers' private
information, including bank account details, in the hands of mass
marketers, violating the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).


COGNIZANT: Faces Two Class Actions in U.S. Over False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Times of India reports that two class action lawsuits have
been filed against Cognizant allegedly for issuing false and
misleading statements about its business and operations between
February 25, 2016 and September 30, 2016.

US law firms Holzer & Holzer, LLC and Glancy Prongay & Murray have
filed the cases against Cognizant on behalf of investors.
According to Holzer & Holzer's complaint, Cognizant made improper
payments to obtain permits and building licences in India.  Both
law firms have made an open invite to Cognizant investors to
discuss their legal rights by December 5, 2016.

An earlier lawsuit filed by Rosen Law Firm alleged that Cognizant
lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting, and
that as a result of the improper payments related to 12 facilities
made in India, the company's statements about its business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.  When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damage.

On September 30, 2016, in a regulatory filing to SEC and the US
department of justice, Cognizant said it was 'conducting an
internal investigation into whether certain payments relating to
facilities in India were made improperly and in possible violation
of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other applicable
laws.'  The filing said the investigation was being conducted with
the oversight of the audit committee, with the assistance of
outside counsel, and is currently focused on a small number of
company-owned facilities.  In the same filing the company said its
president Gordon Coburn resigned and in his place Rajeev Mehta,
current CEO, IT Services was appointed as president of the
company.

Several law firms including Rosen Law Firm, Goldberg Law PC,
Brower Piven, Lundin Law PC, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Khang & Khang
LLP, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C, Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC have
initiated investigations and some filing class action law suits
against CTS in the past month.

Sources said a team of lawyers from a US firm arrived in Chennai a
few weeks before the announcement and were looking into various
land deals the company had entered into for setting up development
centres.  The announcement by Cognizant has come at a time when
the company has said its current year revenue growth of 8.5% to
9.5% will be its slowest since 1996.


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: TransCanada Removed as Defendants in Del. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
plaintiffs in a class action litigation related to a merger deal
have filed an amended claim which removed all TransCanada parties,
limiting the action to the CPG Board and CFO.

On March 30, 2016, two purported stockholders of CPG filed an
action challenging the Merger on behalf of a putative class of CPG
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Vann v. Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., et al. The action
names as defendants CPG, the members of the Board, Parent, US
Parent, Merger Sub and TransCanada.

On April 7, 2016, a second, substantially identical action was
filed in the same court on behalf of the same putative class,
captioned Baldino v. Skaggs, Jr., et al., and naming as defendants
only the members of the Board.

On May 25, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
that, among other things, consolidated the actions into a single
action, captioned as In re Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, and appointed the Vann plaintiffs as lead
plaintiffs and the Vann plaintiffs' counsel as lead counsel.

The Vann plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed May 12, 2016,
alleges that members of the CPG Board breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, agreeing to the Merger following an
inadequate sale process and at an unfair price, and because the
sale process purportedly was affected by conflicts of interest on
the part of the Board, the management of CPG and/or CPG's largest
stockholder as a result of their substantial stockholdings in CPG,
and on the part of one of CPG's financial advisors as a result of
its alleged holdings in TransCanada stock. The amended complaint
also alleges that the preliminary proxy filed in respect of the
Merger omits or misstates various facts concerning, among other
things, the sale process and the financial analyses performed by
CPG's financial advisors. The amended complaint purports to seek
injunctive and other equitable relief regarding the Merger.

On July 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss. On July 18, 2016, Vice Chancellor Laster
entered the briefing schedule deferring briefing on the motion to
dismiss until the motion to stay is resolved.

On September 6, 2016, Vice Chancellor Laster granted TransCanada
and CPG's motion to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss was
pending.

On October 6, 2016, the Vann plaintiffs filed an amended claim
which removed all TransCanada parties, limiting the action to the
CPG Board and CFO. Its revised claim alleges that the Board and
officers entered into a secret scheme to benefit directors and
insiders via change in control benefits and payments originating
when NiSource first spun off the Columbia assets. They continue
their allegations that conflict of interest tainted the
acquisition, the acquisition undervalued CPG and that the proxy
statement was materially deficient. The new claim seeks rescissory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial and disgorgement of
profits from the sale.

At this early stage of the litigation, no outcome or possible loss
or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to
be estimated.

Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. owns and operates, through its
subsidiaries, approximately 15,000 miles of strategically located
interstate gas pipelines extending from New York to the Gulf of
Mexico and one of the nation's largest underground natural gas
storage systems, with approximately 300 MMDth of working gas
capacity, as well as related gathering and processing assets.


COMMUNITY PARKING: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miranda, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Community Parking Corp. dba Community Parking, and
Hector Rijo, Case No. 1:16-cv-08617 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged denial
of overtime compensation.

Community Parking Corp. is corporation filed with the New York
State Department of State.  The Company is incorporated on May 8,
2013, and manages a parking lot in New York City.


CPA GLOBAL: Run Them Sweet Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Run Them Sweet, LLC, a California
limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CPA Global Limited, a
foreign entity formed under the laws of the Island of Jersey,
Channel Islands, and CPA Global North America, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03662,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-01347-TSE-TCB to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. District Judge T. S. Ellis, III.

CPA Global provides intellectual property and legal support
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geoffrey Alex Neri, Esq.
          Ethan Joseph Brown, Esq.
          Rowennakete Paul Barnes, Esq.
          BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
          11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1670
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593 9890
          Facsimile: (310) 593 9980

               - and -

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483 7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749 7747

               - and -

          Barbara Ann Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885

The Defendants are represented by:

          Penelope Athene Preovolos, Esq.
          Grant C Schrader, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268 7187
          Facsimile: (415) 268 7522


CREDIT BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Frankel Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., d/b/a
Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:16-cv-06145 (E.D.N.Y., November 4,
2016), accuses the Defendant of violating the Federal Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Chase Receivables originated as a collection agency in 1953 as the
Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. located in Sonoma, California.
In 1986, Fred Merrill purchased the Credit Bureau of Napa County
and transformed the company into the DBA Chase Receivables.  The
acquisition allowed Chase Receivables to conduct business
nationwide, not as a mere regional collection agency.

Today, Chase Receivables is a collection agency with a national
presence.  The Company is a California corporation and is fully
licensed and bonded throughout the continental United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: "O'Hern" Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled O'HERN v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 2016-CH-
11519, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10353 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought by Richard O'Hern, individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation.


DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Soliz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. BC639242 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 1, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide meal
periods and authorize and permit paid rest breaks in accordance
with the applicable Labor Codes and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") wage order.

Dependable Highway Express, Inc. is engaged in the ownership and
operation of a trucking and logistics company in Los Angeles
County and throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Gregory Mauro, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
      E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
              Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Misleading Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that new
graduates have filed a class action lawsuit against DeVry
University, Inc., citing alleged false and misleading marketing
practices.

Jairo Jara, Elijah Morgan, Steven Nickens, Julie Ramroop, Jose
Rivas, David Viglielmo, et al filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Oct. 28, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against the DeVry, alleging
it willfully misrepresented the actual likelihood of being hired
in their graduates' chosen field.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege they suffered
economic injuries for being unable to find employment within their
chosen field of study within six months of graduation.

The plaintiffs holds DeVry responsible because it allegedly
falsely represented that they would be highly likely to obtain a
new job in their chosen field of study within six months after
graduation.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek declaration that
this action is a proper class action, award for all damages, costs
and expenses for this action and such other relief as the court
deems proper.

They are represented by Theodore B. Bell -- tbell@whafh.com -- and
Carl Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP in Chicago; Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com --
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP in New York; and
Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- and Gregory M.
Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston
in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Case
number 1:16-cv-10168


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: "Hudson" Suit Moved to M.D. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Raymond Lafayette Hudson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 6:16-cv-01252, was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Jacksonville). The Florida Middle District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01361-HLA-JBT to the
proceeding. The assigned Senior Judge is Hon. Henry Lee Adams, Jr.

Diversified Consultants is Telecom-specific collection agency
specializing in the recovery of wireless, landline, cable,
satellite and security debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732 6067

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          Land Title Bldg
          100 S Broad St 19th Flr
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1023
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kirsten N. Baxter, Esq.
          Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
          BAXTER & BAXTER LLP
          8835 SW Canyon Lane, Suite 130
          Portland, OR 97225
          Telephone: (503) 297 9031
          Facsimile: (503) 291 9172

The Defendant is represented by:

          Damian P. Richard, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN
          NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP
          1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 1243
          Facsimile: (619) 296 2013


EBRO NORTH AMERICA: Faces False Advertising Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
man has filed a class action lawsuit against Ebro North America
and New World Pasta Co. Inc., manufacturer, citing alleged false
advertising, misleading labeling and omissions,
misrepresentations, and failure to warn.

Jason Scholder filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated on Oct. 28, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against the defendants
alleging that they obtained profit through unfair or deceptive
trade or commerce.

According to the complaint, Jason Scholder and class members were
enticed to purchase the defendant's products, marketed as all
natural, 100 percent whole grain/wheat and made from a single
ingredient.

However, the plaintiff claims the defendant's pasta products
actually contain glyphosate, an artificial pesticide that has been
declared a probable human carcinogen.  The plaintiff holds Ebro
North America and New World Pasta Co. Inc. responsible because the
defendants allegedly failed to disclose that their products
contain glyphosate, and failed to warn consumers of the dangers of
ingesting a synthetic ingredient.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, to certify the case as a class action, appoint class
representative/counsel, account profit, restitution or
disgorgement, damages, attorneys fees, interest, injunctive relief
and further relief as the court may deem just.  They are
represented by Michael J. Gabrielli of Gabrielli Levitt LLP in
Bronx, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Case
number 16-cv-06002


EDDIE BAUER: "Heredia" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie Heredia, as an
individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Eddie Bauer LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
16CV300475, was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:16-cv-06236-BLF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Beth Labson Freeman.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Afar, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277 7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201 5219
          E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com


EDISON INT'L: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that Plaintiff in the securities class action
has filed an amended complaint.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The
complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as a
defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the
securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International
had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San
Onofre OII that were either unreported or more extensive than
initially reported. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf
of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common
stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015.

On September 14, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend
the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in October
2016.


EDISON INT'L: Hearing This Month on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that the Court will hear defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint in November 2016.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison
International employee, alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The complaint purports
to be filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees
who were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and
invested in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27,
2014 and June 24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties because they knew or should have
known that investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was
imprudent because the price of Edison International common stock
was artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged
failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC
decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII.

In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend
her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016,
and defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016.
Defendants' motion will be heard by the court in November 2016.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by Grand of Violating FDCPA in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Grand, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-06152
(E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process
outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and
market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United
States and internationally.  The Company's outsourcing services
include customer service, customer acquisition, and technical
support through inbound and outbound call handling, virtual chat,
and email communications; recovery services comprise pre charge
off and post charge off, as well as specialty services, such as
dispute resolution, equipment retrieval, reactivation/reconnect,
and warehouse; and market research services including
customer/employee experience, such as customer satisfaction, and
employee engagement.  The Company is headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Bethke Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANET L. BETHKE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC dba ERC and JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:16-cv-08281-ES-JAD (D.N.J., November 4, 2016), is
brought over alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process
outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and
market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United
States and internationally.  The Company's outsourcing services
include customer service, customer acquisition, and technical
support through inbound and outbound call handling, virtual chat,
and email communications; recovery services comprise pre charge
off and post charge off, as well as specialty services, such as
dispute resolution, equipment retrieval, reactivation/reconnect,
and warehouse; and market research services including
customer/employee experience, such as customer satisfaction, and
employee engagement.  The Company is headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


EVERCORE PARTNERS: Awaits Decision on Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties are
awaiting a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit on a class action appeal.

In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action
complaint against Evercore Trust Company ("ETC") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she
purported to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney
Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at
any time between May 15, 2012 and the present. The complaint
alleged that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in
J.C. Penney stock during that period and claimed that the Plan
suffered losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in
J.C. Penney stock.

ETC believes that it has meritorious defenses against the
plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend the action.
ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for
reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would
be refunded should ETC not prevail.

On April 13, 2015, ETC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on February
17, 2016, the district court granted ETC's motion to dismiss. On
March 15, 2016, plaintiff noticed an appeal of the district
court's decision.

The case was argued to the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit on October 13, 2016, and the parties are awaiting a
decision.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Oral Argument on Venue Motions Set for Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the Hearing
Loss Litigation, the Cook County Court, in Illinois, scheduled
oral argument on venue motions for December 5, 2016.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal.

The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the
Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.
The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave
to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On
May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.

On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to
amend their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will
now file motions to certify classes in these cases.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on
improper venue.

Plaintiffs have requested discovery from the Company related to
these venue motions. The Court has scheduled oral argument on
these venue motions for December 5, 2016.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Suits Underway in Various Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, provided updates on
hearing loss litigation outside of the Cook County, Illinois.

The Company has been sued on hearing loss outside of the Cook
County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits
filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009,
this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs
in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant
to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was
voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company
paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict.

Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs,
also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for
the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that
trial. The third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia
firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury
returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and
all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases.

On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the law firm of the
attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of
1,125 claimants the firm represented (the "Claimants") and who had
asserted product claims against the Company (the "Claims"). Three
hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the
Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement
Payment: (i) each Claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims
had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a "Release"),
(ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a
plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with
prejudice, (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the Claimants
identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle
their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company and (iv)
the law firm had to withdraw from representing any Claimants who
did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed
lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less
than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign
a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the
percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in
this case on May 31, 2016. With respect to claims of other out-of-
state firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved
to dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The
Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on November
5, 2015.

During August through December 2015, another nine new cases were
filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of 193 firefighters,
most of whom are located outside of Pennsylvania. The Company
again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-state
firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in Pennsylvania.
On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and dismissed these
claims. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding this
decision. On May 13, 2016, four new cases were filed in
Philadelphia state court, involving a total of 55 Philadelphia
firefighters who live in Pennsylvania. During August 2016, the
Company settled a case involving four Philadelphia firefighters
that had been set for trial in Philadelphia state court during
September 2016.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The
first trials of these Pittsburgh firefighters were scheduled to
occur in May, September and November 2016. Each trial will involve
eight firefighters.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment regarding strict liability claims asserted by all
plaintiff firefighters involved in the initial trial scheduled for
May 2016. The Company also has moved to dismiss remaining
negligence claims asserted by these firefighters. It is
anticipated that the Court will rule on this motion sometime
during 2016. The next trial involving six Pittsburgh firefighters
had been scheduled to start on November 7, 2016.

During March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of
Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61
firefighters. This case likewise involves various defendants in
addition to the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions,
33 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product
manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as
defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County,
New York have been removed to federal court in the Western
District of New York. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving
one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiff
named the Company as well as several other parties as defendants.
That case has been transferred to federal court in the Northern
District of New York. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss
this case during May 2016. The Company also is aware that a
lawsuit involving eight New York City firefighters was filed in
New York County, New York, on April 24, 2015. The Company has not
yet been served in that case. During November 2015 through January
2016, 28 new cases involving a total of 227 firefighters were
filed in various counties in the New York City area. A total of
428 firefighters are currently involved in cases filed in the
state of New York.

During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint
filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New
Jersey firefighters. This case has been transferred to federal
court in the District of New Jersey. During the period from
January through May 2016, eight additional cases were filed in
various New Jersey state courts. Most of the firefighters in these
cases reside in New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire
departments. A total of 104 firefighters are currently involved in
cases filed in New Jersey.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss
claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and
Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were
dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme
Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the
Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs'
attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.


FIRST RATE STAFFING: "Njoroge" Suit Moved to C.D. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jordyn Njoroge, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First
Rate Staffing Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Conagra
Foods Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-03758, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-08069-ODW-PJW to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright,
II

First Rate Staffing provides recruiting and staffing services for
temporary positions in light industrial, distribution center,
assembly, and clerical businesses in California, Arizona, and
Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com

Conagra Foods Inc. is represented by:

          Jennifer Beth Hodur, Esq.
          Nicky Jatana, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 630 8254
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: HodurJ@jacksonlewis.com
                  jatanan@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Andrew James Weissler, Esq.
          Emma L Savory, Esq.
          Josef Stefan Glynias, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480 1926
          E-mail: aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com
                  emma.savory@huschblackwell.com
                  Joe.Glynias@huschblackwell.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Henig" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tzvi Henig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-06144
(E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), alleges violations of the Federal
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Firstsource Advantage, LLC, provides innovative debt collections
services to the leading credit card issuers, financial
institutions, healthcare providers and universities.  The products
serviced include credit/debit cards, auto and student loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


G&K SERVICES: Minnesota Court Dismisses Merger Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
G&K Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit have filed a stipulation, and the court
entered an order, dismissing this action with prejudice as to the
named plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other putative
class members.

The Company said, "On August 15, 2016, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cintas
Corporation ("Cintas") and Bravo Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cintas ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to
the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"). As a result of the
Merger, Merger Sub will cease to exist and the Company will
survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cintas. The Merger is
currently expected to close not later than the second quarter of
calendar year 2017, subject to customary closing conditions,
including, without limitation, (i) the expiration or termination
of the applicable waiting periods under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the "HSR Act"),
and the requisite approval from the Competition Bureau of Canada
pursuant to the Canada Competition Act being obtained and (ii) the
requisite shareholder approval being received."

On September 26, 2016, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, captioned Klein v. G&K Services, Incorporated, et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-03198 (DWF) (KMM), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, against the
Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors. The
complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges, among other things,
that the Company's proxy statement contains false and misleading
statements and/or omits material information. The complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief preventing consumption of
the Merger, monetary damages and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On October 28, 2016, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
making supplemental disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on September 29, 2016. Also on
October 28, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation, and the court
entered an order, dismissing this action with prejudice as to the
named plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other putative
class members, with the court retaining jurisdiction over the
action for the purpose of considering any application by
plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

In connection with the Merger, each of the Company and Cintas
received a second request under the HSR Act and a supplemental
information request under the Canadian Competition Act.

G&K Services, Inc., founded in 1902 and headquartered in
Minnetonka, Minnesota, is a service-focused provider of branded
uniform and facility services programs.


GARDEN CITY GOLF: Faces "Wiggins" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Garden City Golf
Club. The case is captioned Robert Lee Wiggins, in his individual
capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The Garden City Golf Club a/k/a Garden City Men's
Club d/b/a Garden City GC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05959
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2016).

The Garden City Golf Club is a private golf course in Garden City,
New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HCP INC: Firefighters' Pension Fund Class Suit in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCP, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the class action complaint
by Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund is in its early stages
and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its
officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The
suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made
certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of
and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing
to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by
the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead
plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.


INFINITY INSURANCE: Faces "Hallums" Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinity Insurance
Company. The case is styled Shelithea Hallums, individually and as
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Infinity Insurance Company and Infinity Auto
Insurance Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24507-FAM
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Federico A. Moreno.

Infinity Insurance provides a wide range of coverage options for
automobile, business, and home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Alexander Hernandez, Esq.
          Jermaine Lee, Esq.
          Todd L. Wallen, Esq.
          Arturo Carlos Martinez, Esq.
          WALLEN HERNANDEZ LEE MARTINEZ, LLP
          P.O. Box 531029
          Miami, FL 33153
          Telephone: (305) 842 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 842 2105
          E-mail: eric@whlmlegal.com
                  jlee@whlmlegal.com
                  todd@whlmlegal.com
                  arturo@whlmlegal.com


INFOSYS: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Thibodeau, writing for Computerworld, reports that the
composition of Infosys' U.S. workforce is too lopsided --
overwhelmingly South Asian -- to be an accident, allege the
plaintiffs in a discrimination lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, four IT workers from around the U.S., brought
their discrimination lawsuit against the India-based IT services
giant in 2013.  They filed a motion seeking class-action
certification from 2009, and say the potential pool of plaintiffs
may be as large as 125,000.

In bringing this motion, the plaintiffs also worked to cement
their claims with expert help.

David Neumark, a professor of economics at the University of
California, Irvine, analyzed Infosys' U.S. workforce for the
plaintiffs and wrote a 76-page report filed in federal court in
Wisconsin, where the case is being heard.

Mr. Neumark, an expert witness, described Infosys' workforce as
"remarkably disproportionate" because of its South Asian hiring.

The lawsuit alleges that the India-based firm was engaged in
"ongoing national origin and race discrimination," and claimed, at
the time the lawsuit was filed, that the Infosys U.S. workforce
was roughly 90% South Asian.

One plaintiff was hired by Infosys to work on a $49.5 million
Affordable Care Act, government-funded development project for the
District of Columbia.  There were about 100 Infosys employees
working on the healthcare project, but only three were American,
the lawsuit claimed.  The plaintiff alleged harassment, and was
denied promotion, the complaint said.

Mr. Neumark brought a statistical analysis to the discrimination
claim.  Specifically, the economist wrote, "from 2009 through
2015, 89.39% of Infosys' United States workforce was South Asian
while only 11.45% of the United States' Computer Systems Design
and Related Services industry was South Asian."

Mr. Neumark wrote that "the share of South Asian workers in
Infosys' United States-based workforce, when compared to the
relevant labor market, is 301.17 standard deviations higher, and
the statistical likelihood that this disparity is due to chance
-- as opposed to a systematic difference in hiring favoring one
group over the other -- is less than 0.0000001%, or less than 1 in
1 billion."

Infosys is one the largest users of H-1B visa workers.  Infosys
employs about 20,000 in the U.S, according to court records.

When asked for comment, Infosys said as a general policy it
doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The motion for class certification covers all individuals who are
not of South Asian race or Indian national origin, who sought a
position with Infosys in the United States and who were not hired
from August 1, 2009 through the date of class certification. It
also covers those who were denied promotions or terminated.

Plaintiff attorney Michael von Klemperer --
mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- with law firm Kotchen & Low in
Washington, said: "We believe strongly in the merits of the case,
including the merits of the class-certification motion, and we
look forward to the court's ruling and we look forward to trying
the case."

It's expected that Infosys will file a response to the motion.  A
ruling by a judge on the class-certification motion isn't expected
until next year.

The lawsuit last year survived an effort by Infosys to dismiss it.

In the ruling to allow the case to proceed, U.S. District Court
Judge Pamela Pepper wrote, in part, "that the plaintiffs'
allegations are sufficient to state claims that the defendants
intentionally discriminated against them because of the
plaintiff's' race, and the complaint is clear that the plaintiffs
regard their race as distinct from the 'South Asian race' that the
defendants allegedly favor."

There were some 50 exhibits filed in this case, including one from
a former Infosys recruiter who said, in a declaration, that in
conference calls "many of the highly qualified American candidates
we presented were being rejected in favor of Indian candidates."


INLAND BANCORP: iMove Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled iMove Chicago, Inc., individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Inland Bancorp, Inc., Inland Home Mortgage Company, LLC, and
Inland Bank and Trust, the Defendants, Case No. 2016CH 12999, was
removed from the Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, to
the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois -
(Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10106 to the proceeding.

Inland Bancorp operates as a bank holding company for Inland Bank
& Trust.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


IOVATE HEALTH: "Daboussi" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mohammed Daboussi, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc. and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC635205, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-08049 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


IRSA INVERSIONES: Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima said in its
Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 1, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that
a putative class representative's motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff and to appoint class counsel remains pending.

On May 9, 2016, a putative shareholder class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against IRSA, certain of its officers and directors,
and Cresud.  The complaint asserts violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of persons that purchased IRSA's
American Depositary Receipts between November 3, 2014 and December
30, 2015, and alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions relating to IRSA's investment
in IDBD. More specifically, the complaint alleges that IRSA's
disclosures during that time period misrepresented and failed to
disclose that (1) IDBD's US$6.7 billion net debt should have been
consolidated in IRSA's financial statements and (2) as so
consolidated, IRSA's debt would violate the covenants specified in
IRSA's Global Notes Indenture.

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

In each action, a putative class representative has filed a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to appoint class counsel.
Both such motions remain pending before the Court. Defendants
believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged and intend to
vigorously defend these actions. Nevertheless, no assurance can be
given that we will be successful in defending these claims.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Objector to Appeal Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that one of the
objectors to the settlement of a shareholder class action is
seeking to appeal the approval of the settlement.

The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action,
and in a consolidated putative class action brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), relating to
2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio formerly managed by
the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO"). A settlement of the
shareholder class action, under which the Firm will pay $150
million, has received final court approval over objections from
two individuals. One of the objectors is seeking to appeal the
approval of the settlement.

The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed, and that
dismissal has been affirmed by the appellate court, but the
plaintiffs have filed a motion for rehearing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: ERISA and Indirect Purchaser Suits Pending in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a consumer action,
a second ERISA action and an indirect purchaser action remain
pending in the District Court in New York.

The Firm is one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs,
principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the
"U.S. class action").

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of
additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for
persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the
"exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"),
participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA
actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments
(the "indirect purchaser action").

Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement
agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including
the exchange-based actions, and that agreement has been
preliminarily approved by the Court.

The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the
plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The consumer action, a second
ERISA action and the indirect purchaser action remain pending in
the District Court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Quebec & Ontario Actions v. FX Dealers Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in September 2015,
two class actions were filed in Canada against the Firm as well as
a number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations
of the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to
fix the prices of currency purchased in the FX market.

The first action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks
to represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX
instrument. The second action seeks to represent only those
persons in Quebec who engaged in FX transactions.

No further updates were provided in the Firm's SEC Report.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defending LIBOR, Other Benchmark Rate Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the firm remains a
defendant in LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate Investigations and
Litigation.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies
and entities, including the DOJ, the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission ("CFTC"), the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and various state attorneys general, as well as
the European Commission ("EC"), the U.K. Financial Conduct
Authority ("FCA"), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss
Competition Commission and other regulatory authorities and
banking associations around the world relating primarily to the
process by which interest rates were submitted to the British
Bankers Association ("BBA") in connection with the setting of the
BBA's London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various
currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries
also relate to similar processes by which information on rates is
submitted to the European Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection
with the setting of the EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rates
("EURIBOR") and to the Japanese Bankers' Association for the
setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered Rates ("TIBOR"), as well as
processes for the setting of U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates and other
reference rates in various parts of the world during similar time
periods. The Firm is responding to and continuing to cooperate
with these inquiries. As previously reported, the Firm has
resolved EC inquiries relating to Yen LIBOR and Swiss Franc LIBOR.

In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections outlining its
case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR, to which the
Firm has filed a response and made oral representations. In June
2016, the DOJ informed the Firm that the DOJ had closed its
inquiry into LIBOR and other benchmark rates with respect to the
Firm without taking action. Other inquiries have been discontinued
without any action against JPMorgan Chase, including by the FCA
and the Canadian Competition Bureau.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
filed in various United States District Courts. These actions have
been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various
periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually
or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR,
Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, Singapore Interbank
Offered Rate ("SIBOR"), Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR") and/or
the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate ("BBSW") by submitting rates
that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they
transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments
whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen
LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or
BBSW and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims
seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of
litigation.

In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the Court dismissed
certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted
other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to
proceed. In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and
remanded the case to the District Court to consider, among other
things, whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust
claims. JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved to dismiss
the antitrust claims in July 2016.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily
assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodity
Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX
litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have
been preliminarily approved by the Court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of Madoff Claims Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in
the Madoff Litigation have filed an appeal of the dismissal of
their claims.

A putative class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net
winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of
their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme
and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These
plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, as
well as other state and federal claims.

A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a
class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes.
The Florida court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss the case,
and in August 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

The plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the same plaintiffs
have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court,
where the Firm's motion to dismiss is pending.

The New Jersey court granted a transfer motion to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
granted the Firm's motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have
filed an appeal of that dismissal.


KEITH RESTAURANT: Faces "Benitez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keith Restaurant,
Inc. The case is entitled Luis E Benitez, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Keith
Restaurant, Inc., doing business as China Chalet; China Chalet
Uptown Inc., doing business as China Chalet; and Keith Ng, also
known as Keith Ngalet, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08431
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2016).

The Defendants operate a restaurant located at New York, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KOURELI RESTAURANT: Faces "Segarra" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koureli Restaurant
Group, Inc. The case is titled Wilson Segarra, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Koureli
Restaurant Group, Inc. doing business as Nerai Restaurant, and
Spiro Menegatos, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08357 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 27, 2016).

Koureli is a restaurant located in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD,
          HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 688 5640x2548
          Facsimile: (212) 688 5639
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Greenley" Suit in D.M.N.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laborers'
International Union of North America. The case is captioned David
Greenley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Laborers' International Union of North
America, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-03773-WMW-KMM (D.M.N.,
Oct. 31, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M.
Wright.

The Laborers' International Union of North America is an American
and Canadian labor union formed in 1903.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J Helwig, Esq.
          Peter F Barry, Esq.
          BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
          2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 379 8800
          Facsimile: (612) 379 8810
          E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com
                  pbarry@lawpoint.com


LENDINGCLUB: Robbins Geller Appointed Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
John S. "Terry" McMahon III, Esq. -- TMcMahon@mintz.com -- of
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article
for The National Law review, reports that the law firm posted
earlier about the surprising decision of Judge William Alsup of
the Northern District of California not to appoint lead counsel in
the LendingClub class action cases at the same time he appointed a
lead plaintiff.  Instead, the judge ordered that candidates for
lead counsel must submit applications to the newly appointed lead
plaintiff, who would then move the court -- via their current
counsel, who was allowed to apply but not to receive special
treatment -- to approve the lead plaintiff's choice.

That process has now concluded, and in a short order dated October
28, 2016 ("Op."), Judge Alsup held that lead plaintiff's current
counsel, Robbins Geller, was an appropriate selection as class
counsel.  Specifically, "the Court [was] persuaded that the
selection of Robbins Geller was within the scope of several
reasonable choices and was not influenced by any pay-to-play
considerations." (Op. at 1.)

Although it may not have been a surprise that the lead plaintiff
would select its current counsel to be class counsel, "nine other
firms . . . applied to serve as counsel for lead plaintiff."  (Op.
at 2.)  The court has taken each applicant seriously, as well.
"In the course of preparing for the hearing, the Court reviewed
some of the submissions made by candidates for selection as
counsel for lead plaintiff and read with particularity the fee
proposals, staffing proposals, and counsel's track records."  (Op.
at 2.)  However, the court stated that it "did not read passages
dealing with plans for prosecuting the case."  (Op. at 2.)

As we noted in the prior post, the decision to separate the
appointments of lead plaintiff and lead counsel into separate
processes is rare.  Nonetheless, the LendingClub case is a good
reminder that parties and their counsel should not take it as a
given that lead plaintiff and lead counsel will be appointed at
the same time, and lead counsel (or potential lead counsel) should
take care to make sure that they can justify their lead role if
the judge so requests.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over HERO Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Richardson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. County of Los Angeles and Renovate America, Inc., Case
No. BC639230 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 1, 2016), seeks redress
for the Defendants pervasive pattern of false, deceptive, and
otherwise unlawful practices regarding their origination and
administration of purportedly "energy efficient" home improvement
loans under their Home Energy Renovation Opportunity ("HERO")
program, commonly called "HERO Loans."

County of Los Angeles i is a County in the U.S. state of
California. With a population of more than ten million people, it
is the most populous county in the United States.

Renovate America, Inc. provides financing solutions for homes and
communities in the areas of energy and water in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
court has scheduled the fairness hearing for November 21, 2016, to
approve the settlement of the Securities Class Action Complaints.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April
21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police
Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et
al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) was filed against the Company, certain of
the Company's current directors and former and now-former
officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial
firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock
offerings. On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were
consolidated.

On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the
Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of
the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased
or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and
February 12, 2015 and a putative subclass consisting of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to or traceable
to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's February 6, 2013 public stock
offering. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims on
behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Company and certain of the Company's current directors and
former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by certain of the Company's current directors and
former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a)
and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated
amended complaint also asserts claims on behalf the subclass for
(i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the
Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters
of the Company's public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations
of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (iii)
alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the
Company, certain of the Company's former officers, and a
shareholder of the Company.

On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor
Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Class Action Litigation").

On February 5, 2016, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, as well as the stipulation and agreement of settlement
and related exhibits. The stipulation and agreement of settlement
releases all claims asserted against all defendants in the Class
Action Litigation except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P.
and does not release claims asserted in the derivative actions
Hemmingson, et al. v. Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK)
(Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et
al., No. 1-15-CV-281284 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.).

The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides for an
aggregate settlement payment by the Company of $23.5 million,
which includes all attorneys' fees, costs of administration and
plaintiffs' out-of-pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory
awards and disbursements.

The Company expects the settlement will be fully funded by
insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the dismissal of all
claims against the Company and the named individuals in the Class
Action Litigation without any liability or wrongdoing attributed
to them.

On April 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 18, 2016, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement. The court has scheduled the fairness hearing
for November 21, 2016. The settlement remains subject to
stockholder notice, court approval and other customary conditions.

The Company recorded the $23.5 million of the obligation as
accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December
31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The Company recorded $29.6 million of the
proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a
deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29.6 million
were deposited into the Company's escrow account during the first
quarter of 2016 and the Company reclassified the $29.6 million
deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted cash.
During the third quarter of 2016, the Company disbursed the
aggregate settlement payment of $23.5 million after the court
granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in July 2016.

The Company is a Korea-based designer and manufacturer of analog
and mixed-signal semiconductor products for consumer, computing,
communication, industrial, automotive and IoT applications.


MARATHON OIL: Okla. Landowners File Class Action Over Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Boniface, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Oklahoma landowners have filed a federal class action lawsuit
against Texas-based oil and natural gas company Marathon Oil,
asserting the energy giant owes more than $5 million in gas and
oil royalties.

Lead plaintiffs James and Judy Grellner sued on Oct. 6 in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
Marathon Oil on behalf of Oklahoma landowners who have had mineral
leases with Marathon for use of their land since Sept. 1, 2011.

The plaintiffs allege Marathon Oil breached their contractual
agreement by failing to pay royalties on the costs of gathering,
treating, processing and marketing raw gas from landowners' wells.

The Grellners allege that they and the landowners do not know the
terms of the natural gas contracts, including how Marathon
calculates royalties based on the revenue it receives from the
gas.  The Grellners assert that Marathon keeps much of the well
revenue for itself.

The complaint states that "Marathon, like most lessees, has
guarded its production and accounting processes as confidential or
proprietary, thereby, depriving the royalty owners of information
necessary to understand how Marathon calculates royalties."

A lessor/lessee agreement in natural gas contracts is complex,
John S. Lowe, professor of energy law at Texas-based Dedman School
of Law at Southern Methodist University, told Legal Newsline.

"In an oil and gas lease, the words have meaning and you have to
read all of the words to figure out exactly what the meaning is,"
Lowe said. "That kind of analysis is typically what oil companies
that are resisting class certification want to hear."

Mr. Lowe said that historically oil and gas royalties are based on
the market price.

"If you own a piece of land and they discover gas on your land, it
is worth what you can get for it once you get it to market," Mr.
Lowe said.  "The natural gas liquids industry, which is a subset
of the oil industry, considers the natural gas liquid a commodity,
so the price varies over time.

"Royalties would depend on the cost of setting up the processing
plant and the market value.  Different companies have different
payment provisions in their percentage of proceeds depending upon
the market."

Mr. Lowe said that in Texas the cost of transporting and
processing the gas from the lease to the marketplace is charged
proportionally to landowners and is deducted from their royalties.

Conversely, in Oklahoma, oil companies have to bear all the costs
involved in making the gas marketable, which would have a
significant impact on the amount of royalties landowners would
receive.

"What may be going on with Marathon in Oklahoma is another round
in the ongoing struggle to try to clarify what is the limit to the
oil companies' right to make deductions against royalty
calculations," Mr. Lowe said.

Mr. Lowe said that what happens in an oil and gas class
certification also largely depends on where it is filed

"Typically royalty disputes are brought into state courts, so it
is state law that governs," Mr. Lowe said.  "The state statutes
that authorize and limit how class actions proceed are different
from state to state.

"In Texas, we haven't seen a lot of oil and gas class action
lawsuits since the 1990s involving energy royalty calculation
because the Texas courts and legislature poured them out. Texas
found that leases aren't enough alike in these cases to
legitimately treat them as a class.  It is different in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma judges rarely see a class action they don't like."

Mr. Lowe said that another factor that leads to Oklahoma energy
class certification claims is that Oklahoma landowners lease their
land to more than one energy company.

"Landowners receive checks from several companies that interpret
regulations differently and don't calculate royalties the same
way," Mr. Lowe said.

Marathon Oil told Legal Newsline that it does not comment on
pending litigation.

The class action seeks trial by jury and damages.  The plaintiffs
are represented by attorneys Reagan E. Bradford and W. Mark Lanier
of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston and by Rex A. Sharp of Prairie
Village, Kansas.  They could not be reached for comment.


MASSACHUSETTS: Sued Over Vote Registration Cutoff Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Collaborative, Massvote, Edma Ortiz, Wilyeliz Nazario
Leon, and Rafael Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. William Francis Galvin, Diane R. Colelle,
Jeannette Cintron White, and Nicholas P. Salerno, Case No. 16-3354
(Mass. Cmmw., November 1, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
eligible voters who cannot vote due to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts's twenty-day registration cutoff statue.

William Francis Galvin is the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

Diane R. Colelle is the Election Commissioner for the City of
Revere.

Jeannette Cintron White is the City Clerk of the City of Chelsea.

Nicholas P. Salerno is the chairman of the Somerville Election
Commission.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirsten V. Mayer, Esq.
      Patrick J. Welsh, Esq.
      Nicholas S. Bradley, Esq.
      ROPES & GRAY LLLP
      Prudential Tower
      800 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 0219
      Telephone: (617) 951-7000
      E-mail: Kirsten.Mayer@ropesgray.com
              Patrick.Welsh@ropcsgray.com
              Nicholas.Bradley@ropcsgray.com

         - and -

      Matthew R. Segal, Esq.
      Rahsaan D. Hall, Esq.
      Jessie J. Rossman, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS
      211 Congress Street, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 482-3170
      E-mail: msegaJ@acJum.org
              rhall@aclum.org
              jrossman@aclum.org

         - and -

      Scan J. Young, Esq.
      Dale E. Ho, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL UBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC.
      125 Broad Street, l8th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 284-7359
      E-mail: syoung@aclu.org
              dale.bo@aclu.org


MASSAGE ENVY: Sued by McKinney-Drobnis for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, Joseph B. Piccola and Camille Berlese
commenced a purported class action lawsuit against Massage Envy
Franchising, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The case is styled Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, Joseph B. Piccola and
Camille Berlese, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:16-cv-06450-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
November 4, 2016).

The cause of action is stated as "Diversity-Breach of Contract."

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, provides therapeutic massage and
spa services in the United States.  The company's services include
Swedish massage, deep tissue massage, sports massage, prenatal
massage, reflexology, trigger point therapy, cranial sacral
therapy, and healthy skin facials.  The Company also owns and
operates franchise locations in the United States.  The Company
was founded in 2002 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona.  Massage
Envy Franchising, LLC is a former subsidiary of Natural Wellness
USA, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trenton Ross Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN KRINK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com


MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Class Action Pending in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case by David Hughes.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors
Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed
in Ontario, Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Brewers Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners, including Molson Coors
Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario ("LCBO")
are named as defendants in the action.

The plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned
and operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement
to fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market
to the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek
to have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all
Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things,
damages in the amount of Canadian Dollar ("CAD") 1.4 billion.

The Company said, "We note that The Beer Store operates according
to the rules established by the Government of Ontario for
regulation, sale and distribution of beer in the province.
Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are independently set by
each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis.
Accordingly, we intend to vigorously assert and defend our rights
in this lawsuit."

Molson Coors is one of the world's largest brewers and has a
diverse portfolio of owned and partner brands, including core
brands Carling, Coors Light, Miller Lite, Molson Canadian and
Staropramen, as well as craft and specialty beers such as Blue
Moon, Creemore Springs, Cobra and Doom Bar.


MY PILLOW: Settles Deceptive Marketing Class Action for $1MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson, writing for Komo News, reports that millions of
people will rest their heads on a pillow that's been promoted as
the last pillow you'll ever buy.  But, the makers of "MyPillow"
just agreed to pay more than a million dollars to settle a lawsuit
over deceptive marketing.

Pumped up sales pitches from founder Mike Lindell have helped rack
up hundreds of millions in MyPillow sales.  But, Consumer
advocates at truthinadvertising.org launched an investigation over
some of the claims. So did consumer protection officials in
California.  The allegations include misleading marketing and
inappropriate health claims with no reliable scientific evidence.
Investigators say the company also touted MyPillow as the
"Official Pillow of the National Sleep Foundation", but failed to
disclose its financial connection with the group, as required by
law. That claim is still on the company's website but under the
settlement must come down by the end of January.

In agreeing to the settlement, MyPillow admits no wrongdoing.  The
penalties include $100,000 in charitable contributions.
My Pillow still faces two class action lawsuits over its
marketing.

One complaint filed in California, cites claims that inventor and
founder Lindell was a "sleep expert" when according to
investigators he "has no expertise in sleep science or medicine."
California investigators also say MyPillow promoted the product's
ability to solve sleeping problems such as insomnia, snoring, neck
and back pain.

The California class action also alleges that MyPillow used exerts
from third party news organizations in it's marketing to make
consumers believe the organizations endorse the product, when they
do not.

A second class action out of Oregon accuses MyPillow of
deceptively marketing it's "buy one get one free" promotions.  The
suit, filed in October, contends My Pillow inflated the price of
one pillow so that consumers were actually buying two pillows at
or near the regular price of two pillows.

A preliminary settlement in the California class action is
expected to be approved in early 2017 with refunds of $5 dollars
per household.

MyPillow provided the following statement by email in response to
my request for comment:

"MyPillow is pleased to have reached an agreement with Alameda
County.  Our focus is, and always has been, on sharing MyPillow
with as many people as possible.  With this settlement, we are
able to avoid a costly and drawn out court case and turn our
attention back to our number one passion, our customers.  As part
of the settlement, MyPillow will make a $100,000 donation to
nonprofit organizations in California that help the homeless and
victims of domestic violence.  We are pleased our restitution in
this case includes giving back, which is a central part of the
mission of MyPillow," Mike Lindell, inventor & CEO of MyPillow
said.


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Sued by Ehrnfeld in N.Y. for Violating FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Ehrnfeld, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-06141 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

National Enterprise Systems, Inc., provides accounts receivable
management services in the United States.  The Company serves
credit grantors from financial services, retail, automotive, and
telecommunications industries, as well as higher education clients
and government agencies.  The Company was formerly known as
Windham Associates Inc. and changed its name to National
Enterprise Systems, Inc., in January 2002.  National Enterprise
was founded in 1987 by Ernest R. Pollak and is headquartered in
Solon, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NBTY INC: "Gates" Suit Seeks Moved from S.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlos Solis, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NBTY
Inc. and United States Nutrition, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-02090, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08395-LGS
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.

BTY, Inc., formerly known as Nature's Bounty, Inc., is an American
manufacturer of vitamins and nutritional supplements which are
distributed under many third party brands in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Andrei Armas, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  andrei@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Leigh Groves, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591 1400
          E-mail: agroves@winston.com


NEW JERSEY: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Jersey State
Police. The case is styled ASHLEY ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW JERSEY STATE
POLICE; JOSEPH FUENTES, in his capacity as Superintendent of New
Jersey State Police; CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO, in his capacity as
Acting Attorney General of the State of New Jersey; ELIE HONIG, in
her official capacity as Director of the Office of the Attorney
General Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Criminal
Justice; MARC DENNIS, individually and in his capacity as
Coordinator in the New Jersey State Police Alcohol Drug Testing
Unit, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07976-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., Oct.
28, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp.

The New Jersey State Police (NJSP) is the state police force for
the U.S. state of New Jersey. It is a general-powers police agency
with statewide jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON
          SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park
          220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
          Telephone: (856) 482 5222
          Facsimile: (856) 482 6980
          E-mail: ljrodriguez@schnader.com


NEW WORLD: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Magana" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Magana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. New World Logistics Service, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. BC637786 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 1,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
employees' premium wages due for missed, denied and unauthorized
meal and rest periods.

New World Logistics Service, Inc. operates a trucking company
located at 519 E C St, Wilmington, CA 90744.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
      Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
      Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
      Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
      GAINES & GAINES, APLC
      27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
      Calabasas, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 703-8985
      Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
      E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
              daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
              alex@gaineslawfirm.com
              sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


NEW YORK: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steven Banks. The
case is captioned Teresa Garcia, by her guardian, Robert Kruger,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Steven Banks, in his official capacity as
Commissioner, New York City Human Resources Administration, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08370 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2016).

Human Resources Administration is the department of the government
of New York City in charge of the majority of the city's social
services programs. HRA helps New Yorkers in need through a variety
of services that promote employment and personal responsibility
while providing temporary assistance and work supports.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Steinmetz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is captioned Evelyn Steinmetz, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06011 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2016).

Northstar, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides
receivables debt collection services to customers in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


OCH-ZIFF: Menaldi Plaintiffs Have Until Nov. 17 to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
Plaintiffs in the case, Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Mgmt., et al.,
have until November 17, 2016, to file a second amended complaint.

On May 5, 2014, a purported class of shareholders filed a lawsuit
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Mgmt., et al.).
The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers
of Company securities from February 9, 2012 to August 22, 2014,
and asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Daniel Och, Joel Frank and Michael Cohen are also named
defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things,
breaches of certain disclosure obligations with respect to matters
that were under investigation by the SEC and the DOJ. On March 16,
2015, the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On February 17, 2016, the court entered an order granting the
motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part, and dismissed
Mr. Cohen from the action.

On March 2, 2016, the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank filed a
motion for reconsideration requesting that the court reconsider
its ruling insofar as it denied the motion to dismiss and further
requesting that the court dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety. The motion for reconsideration was denied on May 6,
2016.

On March 23, 2016, the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank filed
their answer to the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have until
November 17, 2016, to file a second amended complaint.

Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is
a global alternative asset management firm with offices in New
York, London, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Beijing, Dubai, Shanghai and
Houston. The Company provides asset management services to its
investment funds, which pursue a broad range of global investment
opportunities. The Company currently manages multi-strategy funds,
dedicated credit funds, including opportunistic credit funds and
Institutional Credit Strategies products, real estate funds and
other alternative investment vehicles. Through Institutional
Credit Strategies, the Company's asset management platform that
invests in performing credits, the Company manages collateralized
loan obligations and other customized solutions for its clients.


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Carr" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC. The case is styled Myrtle Carr, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC, doing business as Ocwen, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04036-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct. 31, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Ocwen is a mortgage servicing companies in America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTERWALL INC: Accused by "Boyer" Class Suit of Violating ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Outerwall, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02745-LAB-BLM (S.D.
Cal., November 6, 2016), alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

Outerwall Inc. is the Company that brought consumers Redbox(R)
entertainment, Coinstar(R) money services, and ecoATM(R)
electronics recycling kiosks.  Outerwall(TM) kiosks are in
neighborhood grocery stores, drug stores, mass merchants, malls,
and other retail locations in the United States, Canada, Puerto
Rico, the United Kingdom, and Ireland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com


PETROBRAS: Wants 2nd Circuit to Narrow Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Donal Scully, writing for Splash24/7, reports that lawyers for
troubled Brazilian oil company Petrobras on Nov. 3 asked the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to exclude certain
groups of plaintiffs from a class-action suit against the firm,
according to Reuters.

The class action claims damages due to investors in the debt-laden
oil giant because of the notorious bribery scandal which led to a
plunge in Petrobras' stock price.

Petrobras' lawyers say that the class action should include only
investors who conducted transactions in the US, where the legal
case has been brought, therefore excluding trades done on
exchanges in other countries.

They also claim that there is a failure to prove that the bribes-
for-inflated-contracts scheme, which cost the company at least
$2bn, was a direct cause of the share price's fall.

Their aim is to have some investors decertified as a group of
plaintiffs, effectively reversing a lower court decision from
early this year.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Sued by Kuznetsov in N.Y. for Violating FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Kuznetsov, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No.
1:16-cv-06143 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), is brought over
alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd., provides collections and financial recovery
services.  The Company offers services that include compassionate
deceased care and probate, pre and post charge-off credit and
business cards, consumer retails, debt management, and cease and
desist solutions.  Phillips & Cohen Associates serves clients
worldwide.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Freilich" Suit Alleges Violations of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Freilich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-06142 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), is brought over
alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts.  The Company
serves customers through account representatives.  The Company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.   The
Company operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


PPL CORP: Discovery on Cane Run Claims Through 2nd Quarter 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, LG&E and KU
Energy LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Kentucky
Utilities Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a District Court
has issued an order setting a discovery schedule related to the
Cane Run Environmental Claims (PPL, LKE and LG&E) through the
second quarter of 2017.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA. In
addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged
statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these
plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for
property damage and diminished property values for a class
consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane Run plant.
In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation
for alleged adverse health effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July
2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but
one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss their common law
tort claims. Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district court
certified for appellate review the issue of whether the state
common law claims are preempted by federal statute.

In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
issued an order granting appellate review regarding the above
matter. Oral argument before the Sixth Circuit was held in August
2015.

In November 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the District Court's ruling that plaintiffs' state law claims are
not preempted by the Clean Air Act and remanding the matter to the
District Court for further proceedings. The District Court has
issued an order setting a discovery schedule through the second
quarter of 2017.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E
retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015
and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015.


PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Breach of Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Publix Super
Markets Inc., citing alleged breach of implied warranty and breach
of warranty.

Erin Rudder filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Oct. 21, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against Publix Super Markets
Inc. alleging that the food manufacturer breached its duty of good
faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege Publix is
manufacturing, selling and distributing products that claim to be
100 percent real Parmesan or Romano cheese, but were found to
actually contain fillers such as cellulose, an anti-clumping agent
derived from wood chips.

Publix Super Markets allegedly deceived consumers into purchasing
mislabeled products, caused plaintiff to pay premium prices for
substandard products, and increased profits by adding more
cellulose than necessary to drive down the cost at the expense of
consumers' health.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, maintain case as a class action, to appoint plaintiff
as class representative and counsel as class counsel, damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, interest and
further relief as may be just.

They are represented by Richard J. Lantinberg of The Wilner Firm
in Jacksonville, Florida; Ben Barnow, Erich P. Schork --
e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- and Jeffrey Blake --
j.blake@barnowlaw.com -- of Barnow & Associates PC in Chicago;
Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP in San Diego; Lori
G. Feldman and Andrea Clisura of Levi & Korsinsky LLP in New York;
and Mark Reinhardt and Brant Penney of Reinhardt Wendorf
Blanchfield in St. Paul, Minnesota.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 9:16-cv-81777


QLT INC: Stockholder Suit in Delaware Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
QLT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that a Delaware class action has
been dismissed without prejudice.

In connection with the Merger, two putative stockholder class
action lawsuits have been filed, one in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts and the other in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

On October 3, 2016, a complaint captioned Flanigon v. Aegerion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. 12794, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action"). The Delaware
Action was brought by Timothy Flanigon, who purports to be a
stockholder of Aegerion, on his own behalf, and also seeks
certification as a class action on behalf of all of the Aegerion
stockholders. The Delaware Action alleges, among other things,
that the Aegerion board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed transaction by agreeing to an
inadequate exchange ratio and engaging in a flawed sales process.
The Delaware Action further alleges that QLT and Isotope
Acquisition Corp. ("Isotope") aided and abetted the alleged
breaches.

In addition, the Delaware Action alleges that the September 28,
2016 Amendment No. 2 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed
in connection with the proposed transaction is materially
misleading. The Flanigon complaint seeks, among other things, to
enjoin the proposed transaction, to rescind it or award rescissory
damages should it be consummated and an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. Also on October 3, 2016, plaintiff in the Delaware
Action filed motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary
injunction.

On October 21, 2016, the Delaware Action was dismissed without
prejudice.


QLT INC: Still Defends "Steinberg" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
QLT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that on August 16, 2016, a
complaint captioned Steinberg v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11668, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Aegerion,
QLT, Isotope and each member of the Aegerion board of directors
(the "Federal Action"). The Federal Action was brought by Chaile
Steinberg, who purports to be a stockholder of Aegerion, on her
own behalf, and seeks certification as a class action on behalf of
all of the Aegerion stockholders. The Steinberg complaint alleges,
among other things, that the August 8, 2016 Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed in connection with the proposed transaction is
materially misleading. The Steinberg complaint asserts claims
arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, to
rescind it or award recessionary damages should it be consummated
and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.


R+L FREIGHT: Faces "Herrera" Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R+L Freight
Services. The case is entitled Lynn Herrera and Margaret Raber on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. R+L Freight Services, LLC, doing business as R+L Truckload
Services, an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00795-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2016).

R+L Carriers offers shipping services to fit any need.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245 3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


RUCHI INDIAN: Faces "Basurto" Suit in Southern Dist. of N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruchi Indian Cuisine
Inc. The case is titled Angel Basurto, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ruchi Indian
Cuisine Inc., doing business as Ruchi; Assis Goes; Shamir Deb; and
Sumi Doe, and Bachu Doe, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08399
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2016).

Ruchi Indian Cuisine Restaurant serves authentic, home-cooked
Southern Indian food.

The Plaintiff appear pro se.


RUSHMORE SERVICE: Accused by Bakon of Violating FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bakon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06137 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), alleges violations of the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Rushmore Service
Center is a nationally licensed collection agency providing
collection and recovery services to a wide variety of businesses
and industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


SHAMROCK SALOON: Faces "Escobar" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shamrock Saloon I
LLC. The case is captioned Benigno Escobar, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Shamrock
Saloon I LLC, doing business as McFadden's, and John Sullivan, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08418 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2016).

Shamrock Saloon operates a restaurant located In New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SMX LLC: Faces "Rwomwijhu" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Angela Rwomwijhu, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. SMX, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company;
Amazon.com, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-
20, inclusive, Case No. BC634518, was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District Of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-08105 to the
proceeding.

SMX is a staffing and employment agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


STAR-MED LLC: Removes Wood Atter Class Suit to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Star-Med, LLC, removes the lawsuit entitled Wood, Atter & Wolf,
P.A. v. Star-Med, LLC, Case No. 16-2016-CA-006096-XXXX-MA, from
the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-01393-BJD-JBT to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as "190 Contract: Other."

Plaintiff Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Henry Eric Gare, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HENRY GARE
          1920 San Marco Boulevard
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 387-6101
          E-mail: garelaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          William John Scott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J. SCOTT, PA
          2716 Herschel St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32205
          Telephone: (904) 398-9995
          Facsimile: (904) 358-4007
          E-mail: wjscott@wjscottlaw.com

Defendant Star-Med, LLC, a Delaware Company, is represented by:

          Brett Gordon Mereness, Esq.
          Shelby Serig, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          4686 Sunbeam Rd., Suite 201
          Jacksonville, FL 32257
          Telephone: (904) 672-4014
          Facsimile: (904) 672-4050
          E-mail: Brett.Mereness@csklegal.com
                  shelby.serig@csklegal.com


STARKIST CO: Brief in "Hendricks" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Feb 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC MICHAEL
LINDBERG, the Objector - Appellant, and STARKIST CO., the
Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 16-16995 (9th Cir, Oct. 31, 2016),
is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class
action, Case No. 3:13-cv-00729-HSG (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2016).

Appellant Eric Michael Lindberg's opening brief is due February 6,
2017.

Appellees Patrick Hendricks and Starkist Co.'s answering brief is
due March 7, 2017.

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

The Plaintiff - Appellee Patrick Hendricks is represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989 9113

The Objector - Appellant, Eric Michael Lindberg is represented by:

          Sam A. Miorelli, Esq.
          764 Ellwood Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (352) 458 4092

The Defendant - Appellee, Starkist Co. is represented by:

          Robert Brian Hawk, Esq.
          Stacy R. Hovan, Esq.
          John Christopher Mitchell, Esq.
          Michael J. Shepard, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          4085 Campbell Avenue
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 463 4008


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Sued by Bukhbinoler for Violating FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Vadim Bukhbinoler, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06140 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), is brought under
the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Stoneleigh Recovery Associates provides debt recovery services in
the United States.  The Company primarily focuses on primary
credit card collection.  The Company was founded in 2007, and is
based in Lombard, Illinois.


SUNEDISON INC: "Kunz" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Robert Kunz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunedison, Inc.,
Ahmad R. Chatila, and Brian Wuebbels, Case No. 4:16-cv-00113, was
transferred from the United States District Court - District of
Missouri Eastern to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
08118-PKC to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02742-
PKC.  According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Southern District of New
York and assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel.

Sunedison, Inc.is a global renewable energy development company
that develops, finances, installs, owns and operates renewable
power plants to deliver electricity to its residential,
commercial, government and utility customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Christopher Wehrle, Esq.
      WEHRLE LAW LLC
      7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102
      St. Louis, MO 63117
      Telephone: (314) 614-4843
      E-mail: chris@wehrlelaw.com

The Movant Andrew C. Newman, Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Municipal Employees Retirement
System of Michigan, and KBC Asset Management N.V. are represented
by:

      Maurice B. Graham, Esq.
      GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
      701 Market Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
      Telephone: (314) 345-2002
      Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
      E-mail: mgraham@grgpc.com

SUNEDISON INC: "Moodie" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kenneth J. Moodie, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sunedison, Inc.,
Ahmad Chatila, and Brian Wuebbels, Case No. 4:15-cv-01809, was
transferred from the United States District Court - District of
Missouri Eastern to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
08113-PKC to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02742-
PKC.  According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Southern District of New
York and assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel.

Sunedison, Inc. is a global renewable energy development company
that develops, finances, installs, owns and operates renewable
power plants to deliver electricity to its residential,
commercial, government and utility customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

The Movant Andrew C. Newman, Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Municipal Employees Retirement
System of Michigan, and KBC Asset Management N.V. are represented
by:

      Maurice B. Graham, Esq.
      GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
      701 Market Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
      Telephone: (314) 345-2002
      Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
      E-mail: mgraham@grgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles N. Insler, Esq.
      Glenn E. Davis, Esq.
      HEPLER BROOM
      211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 241-6160
      Facsimile: (314) 241-6116
      E-mail: cni@heplerbroom.com
              Glenn.Davis@heplerbroom.com


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: "Chein" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Menachem Chein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-06138 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016), is brought over
alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Synergetic Communication (Syncom) is a professional collection
agency and is a third-party debt collector.  The Company has
locations in Houston, Texas; Hopkins, Minnesota; and Post Falls,
Idaho.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: Faces "Botelho" Suit in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Technological
Medical Advancements LLC. The case is entitled Jennifer Botelho,
dba Chiropractic Center of Los Angeles individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Technological
Medical Advancements LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-08085 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2016).

Technological Medical is the manufacturer of the Diowave-USA brand
of therapeutic laser systems for neuro-musculoskeletal pain
management and wound healing.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TEREX CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has
filed motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits as follows:

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the
stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also
alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of
the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a
result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The
complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.
The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the
securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative
lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold
pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with
the securities lawsuit.

Terex is a global manufacturer of lifting and material processing
products and services that deliver lifecycle solutions to maximize
customer return on investment.


TULSA'S GREEN: Faces "White" Suit in Northern Dist. of Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tulsa's Green
Country Staffing. The case is styled Bruce D. White, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Tulsa's Green Country Staffing, L.L.C., and Shield Screen, L.L.C.,
doing business as Shield Screening, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-
cv-00658-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., Oct. 27, 2016). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge John E Dowdell.

Tulsa's Green provides Tulsa employers with workers in a variety
of disciplines that span the industrial, administrative, clerical,
managerial, and production fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony R Pecora, Esq.
          Lucius James Wallace, Esq.
          Matthew A Dooley, Esq.
          Paul Mario Catalano, Esq.
          Robert David Humphreys, Esq.
          HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS
          9202 S Toledo Ave.
          Tulsa, OK 74137
          Telephone: (918) 747 5300
          Facsimile: (918) 747 5311
          E-mail: luke@hwh-law.com
                  paul@hwh-law.com
                  david@hwh-law.com


UNITED STATES: Faces "Venkataram" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Bureau
of Prison. The case is titled Natarajan Venkataram, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
United States Bureau of Prison, Thomas R. Kane, H.J. Marberry,
B.H. Romero, and Tracie Jenkins, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
24502-RNS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

The Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement
agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED STATES: Faces "Smith" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
District Court. The case is styled David L. Smith, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
United States District Court, State of North Carolina, and Bryan
K. Wells, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-ct-03291-D (E.D. Car.,
Oct. 31, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge James C.
Dever, III.

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of
the United States federal court system.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNIVERSAL HAIR: Faces "Buendia" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Hair
Styling & Barber Shop LLC. The case is entitled Sandra Pinos
Buendia individually and on behalf of other similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Universal Hair Styling & Barber Shop LLC, doing
business as Universal Barber Shop; Luis Manuel Nunez; Carlos
Moronta; and Jose Guadalupe Nunez Bernabe, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08425 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2016).

Universal Barber Shop is a barber shop located at 801 Baltimore
Ave College Park, MD 20740.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


US SECURITY: Does Not Properly Pay Security Guards, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ngn Hardeo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No. 713084/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., November 1, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
requiring Security Guards to perform work without compensation
before and after the start of their shift.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. operates a security guard service
company at John F. Kennedy International Airport, Queens, New York
11430.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      LOUIS GINSBERG, PC
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105


VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Faces "Kelly" Suit in E.D. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon
Pennsylvania, LLC. The case is titled CHRISTOPHER KELLY,
INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, VERIZON ONLINE
PENNSYLVANIA PARTNERSHIP, and VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05672-JD (E.D. Penn., Oct. 31, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Jan E. Dubois.

Verizon Pennsylvania provides wireline telecommunications
services. The company offers exchange telecommunications services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735 1130
          E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian T. Feeney, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988 7812
          E-mail: feeneyb@gtlaw.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Nebraska Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in Nebraska.

The Company said, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that we failed to pay minimum wage per hour for
drivers in our student driver training program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time. The period covered by this
class action suit dates back to 2008 through March 2014. In August
2015, the court denied our motion for summary judgment and granted
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling in plaintiff's
favor on both theories of liability (short breaks and sleeper
berth time). During second quarter 2016, the court issued two
rulings, the first of which dismissed the plaintiff's claims under
the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (but not the FLSA)
and the second of which granted our motion to strike plaintiff's
untimely damages calculations."

"As a result, we reduced our accrual in second quarter 2016, and
we had a $1.2 million estimated liability at September 30, 2016
related to the short break matter. Based on the knowledge of the
facts related to the sleeper berth matter, management does not
currently believe a loss is probable, thus we have not accrued for
the sleeper berth matter. We are currently unable to determine the
possible loss or range of loss. We intend to vigorously defend the
merits of these claims and to appeal any adverse verdict in this
case."


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Defending Meal and Rest Breaks Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
involved in certain class action litigation in which the
plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.
Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not currently
believe the outcome of the litigation is likely to have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
However, the final disposition of these matters and the impact of
such final dispositions cannot be determined at this time.


WESTERN NATIONAL: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Western National Properties and Does 1-5, Case No.
BC639319 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 1, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Western National Properties own and operate a property management
company in Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Mazyar K. Shamshoni, Esq.
      SHAMSHONI LAW FIRM
      1925 Century Park East Suite 1380
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)933-4787
      Facsimile: (310)651-8402


WESTAR ENERGY: Parties Agree to Withdraw Stockholders' Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
consolidated putative class action and the putative derivative
complaint have independently agreed to withdraw requests for
injunctive relief and otherwise agreed in principle to dismissing
the actions with prejudice and to providing releases.

The consolidated putative class action complaint, filed on July
25, 2016, is captioned In re Westar Energy, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Case No. 2016-CV-000457.

The Company said, "This complaint names as defendants Westar
Energy, the members of our board of directors and Great Plains
Energy. The complaint asserts that the members of our board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in
connection with the proposed merger. It also asserts that Westar
Energy and Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
(i) the merger consideration deprives our shareholders of fair
consideration for their shares, (ii) the merger agreement contains
deal protection provisions that unfairly favor Great Plains Energy
and discourage third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, (iii) the disclosures are misleading and/or omit
material information necessary for Westar Energy shareholders to
make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of the proposed
transaction and (iv) if the proposed transaction is consummated,
certain of our directors and officers stand to receive significant
benefits. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, (i)
injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) rescission of the
merger agreement or rescissory damages, (iii) a directive to
members of our board of directors to account for all damages
caused by them as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary
duties and (iv) an award for costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees."

"The putative derivative complaint, filed on July 5, 2016 and as
amended on August 25, 2016, is captioned Braunstein v. Chandler et
al., Case No. 2016-CV-000502. This putative derivative action
names as defendants the members of our board of directors, Great
Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, with Westar
Energy named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts that
the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our shareholders in connection with the proposed merger.
It also asserts that Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great
Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of our
board of directors failed to obtain the best possible price for
our shareholders because of a flawed process that discouraged
third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, and
that the disclosures are false or misleading due to the omission
of certain information. The complaint seeks, among other remedies,
(i) a direction that the director defendants exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of us and our shareholders, (ii) a declaration that the
proposed transaction was entered into in breach of the fiduciary
duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and
unenforceable, (iii) rescission of the merger agreement, (iv) the
imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff, on
behalf of us, upon any benefits improperly received by the named
defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, (v) award for
costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and (vi) the
imposition of an injunction against the defendants and others from
consummating the merger on the terms proposed. The defendants have
moved for dismissal of this complaint.

"On September 21, 2016, the parties in the consolidated putative
class action and the putative derivative complaint independently
agreed to withdraw requests for injunctive relief and otherwise
agreed in principle to dismissing the actions with prejudice and
to providing releases. In exchange, the parties in the putative
derivative complaint agreed that Westar would make supplemental
disclosures to the shareholders, which disclosures were made in a
Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2016, and the parties in the
consolidated putative class action agreed that Westar Energy would
(i) make the disclosures in the Form 8-K filed on September 21,
2016, and (ii) grant waivers of the prohibition on requesting a
waiver of the standstill provisions in the confidentiality and
standstill agreements executed by the bidders that participated in
the Westar Energy sale process. These agreements do not constitute
any admission by any of the defendants as to the merits of any
claims. In the future the parties will prepare and present to the
court for approval Stipulations of Settlement that will, if
accepted by the court, settle the actions in their entirety."


XENCOR INC: To Settle Remaining Claims for $2.375 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit have agreed to settle the complaint's
remaining claims for a total payment of $2.375 million to the
class certified by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned
DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of
the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of
action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and
Stockholder Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the
plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of
the Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period.

On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief
under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the
corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed
an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the
class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to
file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class
action, which the Company has done.

On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for leave to File
an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter-
Claim and related documents. On October 5, 2015, the parties filed
a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents
disclosing a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the
complaint, the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter-
claim including a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement
of legal fees up to $950,000.

On October 7, 2015, Xencor filed the Amended Counter-Claim and the
related documents. On December 14, 2015, the Court entered an
Order and Partial Final Judgment approving the settlement of the
invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in the
complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint
(the invalidity claims)  and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee
award.

"We have paid the plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of
insurance proceeds of $187,500 which has been reflected as a
charge in our 2015 operations," the Company said.

On September 27, 2016, the parties engaged in voluntary mediation
and agreed to settle the complaint's remaining claims for a total
payment of $2.375 million to the class certified by the Delaware
Court of Chancery. The settlement, which is subject to approval by
the Court, was reached without any party admitting wrong-doing.
Under the terms of the settlement, no payments shall be made to
the plaintiffs by the Company or any of the defendants in the
lawsuit other than payments covered by the Company's insurance.
The Company currently expects that the court will approve the
settlement in the first quarter of 2017.

Xencor is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering and developing engineered monoclonal antibodies to
treat severe and life-threatening diseases with unmet medical
needs.


                            *********

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  * * *