CAR_Public/161129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 238




                            Headlines

3D SYSTEMS: Motion for Reconsideration Currently Pending
AAMI: Class Action Mulled Over Wye River Bushfire Insurance
AIU ONLINE: Hodge's Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to Nov. 30
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Sale of Soliris
ALLSTATE CORP: Jan. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

ALLY FINANCIAL: Bucks County Securities Suit Moved to E.D. Mich.
AMARIN CORP: To Defend Against Class Action Appeal
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Dec. 21 Status Conference Set in "Pirinea" Suit
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Memorandum Implementing Rulings
AMERICAN FARMLAND: Faces Shareholders' Class Action in Baltimore

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Penalties Over Employment Structures
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Brockton Retirement System Now Final
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Underway
BF LABS: Court Allows Alexander to Amend Motion to Certify Class
APIGEE CORPORATION: Demurrer and Motion to Strike Underway

BLUETOWER MOBILE: Hamilton Sues to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
BMW: March 31 Hearing Set for Defective Sunroof Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 40,000 Mesh Claims Filed as of Oct. 31
BP PLC: Feb. 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CALIBER HOME: Class Certification Sought in "Grove" Suit

CASINO RAMA: Faces Class Action Over Massive Privacy Breach
CBS RADIO: Misclassified Ad Sales Staff, Monroe Alleges
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Wants Gender Bias Class Action Dismissed
CHARLOTTE PALM: "Autry" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Final Payments Under Reed and Sikora Cases

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Faces "Masters" Class Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Guglielmo" Case in N.Y.
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Brown" Case
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Wage & Hour Suit Underway
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Dec. 5 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Rodriguez"

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Suit Alleging Rigging of Bids
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Hearing Not Yet Set on Motion to Dismiss
CHRISTOPHER J CHRISTIE: "Slaughter" Suit in N.J. Dismissed
COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Jailor Seeks Conditional Certification
COMCAST CORP: Illegally Withdrew Customers' Funds, Danow Alleges

COMERCIAL MEXICANA: "Lopez" Suit Seek OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Sought in "Cooke" Suit
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Suit in Early Stages
DOLLAR THRIFTY: "McKinnon" Plaintiffs May File 5th Amended Suit

DS HEALTHCARE: Response to Amended Complaint Due Dec. 19
DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Jenkins" Demands Show of Sponsorship Contracts
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EAGLE MARINE: O'Neal Wins Conditional Certification
EVERYDAY HEALTH: "Ebbs" Sues Over Merger with Project Echo

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investors Class Suit Over Stock Crash
FACEBOOK INC: Halts Racially-Targeted Housing, Employment Ads
FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge RAM Owners File RICO Class Action
FIREEYE INC: Brings Class Cert. Challenge to Calif. Supreme Court
FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba Seeks to Proceed as Class Action

GERON CORPORATION: California District Court Stays Lawsuits
GOLDMAN SACHS: SunEdison Securities Litig. Pending in Calif. Court
GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Currencies-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Indirect Forex Buyers' Suit Underway

GOLDMAN SACHS: Commodities-Related Litigation Claims Dismissed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Underway
GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Motion for Class Certification
GS ELECTECH: January 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HONEY HOLDING: Judge Dismisses Chinese Honey Class Action

HUMANA INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Kentucky
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Investors Sue Diller Over Stock Plan
INDIVIOR: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Suboxone Prices
INVENTURE FOODS: Initial Case Management Conference on Dec. 12
ITEL NETWORKS: "Brown" Suit Seeks Recover Overtime Pay, Damages

JOHN HANCOCK: "Larson" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
KROENKE SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
LAWRY'S THE PRIME RIB: Faces Wage Class Action in Chicago
LENTUO INTERNATIONAL: March 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Jie for Violating Securities Act

LOUISIANA: Denied Tax Credits for Solar Power, Suit Says
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Wins Final Approval of $23.5MM Accord
MARION BASS: February 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MIRVAC: Waverley Park Estate Residents Mull Class Action
MISSOURI STATE HIGH: Class Cert. Sought in Student-Athlete Case

MISTRAS GROUP: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 2
MOBILOIL FEDERAL CREDIT: Faces Overdraft Fees Class Suit
MONEY MAX: "Common Fund" Ruling Game Changer, Jones Day Says
MUDTECH SERVICES: "Gallow" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: Pfeuti Suit Dismissed Following Settlement

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Rules
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Finds Standing in Data Breach Case
NBTY INC: Sweat Files Third Motion for Class Certification
NEW BOSTON PIE: "Brayak" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NORTHERN TRUST: January 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NORTHSTAR FINANCE: "Boothe" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
PATTERN ENERGY: Jan. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PREMIER NUTRITION: "Ravinsky" Alleges Product Mislabelling
PREMIER NUTRITION: "Lux" Alleges Product Mislabeling in Juice
PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Merger Litigation

ROBINSON NURSING: Judge Rules Out Conflict of Interest
SAMARCO MINERACAO: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $28MM
SCRANTON, PA: Sewer Authority Faces Class Action Over Sale

SP AUSNET: Judge Wants Hearing on Bushfire Class Action Costs
SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Court Oks Certification in "Jackson" Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Truck Frames Class Action for $3.4 Bil.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEM: Class Certification Sought in "Young" Suit
TRINET GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Welgus" Suit Underway

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump's Lawyers File Motion to Delay Trial
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Lawyers Want Trial to Proceed
U.S. SECURITY: Meal Break Subclass Decertification Sought
UNITED STATES: Nat'l Guard Vets Want Bonus Payback Issue Resolved
UNITED STATES: Ordered to Implement Immigration Bond System

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses IRS Data Breach Class Action
UNITED STATES: Texas Patriots Tea Party Class Action Pending
VIRGIN AMERICA: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Bernstein" Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Audi Defeat Device Software Adds to Woes
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Mislabeled Egyptian Cotton Bed Sheets

WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration in Customers' Class Action
ZIMMER INC: Judge OKs Canadian Durom Cup Class Action Settlement

* Feb. 15 Deadline Set for Comments on Proposed Class Action Rule
* FTC to Study Class Action Settlement Notice Programs
* Queensland's Introduction of Class Action Regime Praised


                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Motion for Reconsideration Currently Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants' motion
for reconsideration of a court Order is currently pending.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC
Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the
"Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
and that the former officers are control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of
stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14,
2016, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July
25, 2016 (the "Order").

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on
August 4, 2016, which is currently pending.


AAMI: Class Action Mulled Over Wye River Bushfire Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Sinnott, writing for Geelong Advertiser, reports that
outraged Wye River residents have voiced their frustration with
AAMI for the first time following 10 months of alleged inertia and
indifference from the leading insurer.

The group, who all took out complete replacement cover, met in
Geelong on Nov. 13 to outline how AAMI had failed to show interest
and compassion following the loss of their properties in the Black
Christmas bushfires.  In several instances, the AAMI customers
allege the insurer kept in place full monthly premiums covering
house and contents despite the fact all their Wye River
possessions had been incinerated.

Corangamite MP Sarah Henderson was scheduled to meet Prime
Minister Malcolm Turnbull to relay the group's anger with AAMI and
has warned others not to do business with the household name
insurer.

Alex Aldis and Meaghan Montgomery paid for an independent quote on
their razed property which equated the loss at $658,000. However,
AAMI's quote came back at around $498,000.

"There could be potentially a class action here because there's a
lot of people who have been disadvantaged by this misleading and
deceptive policy," Ms. Montgomery said.

"At a very high level, there's been no commitment from AAMI, no
timelines, there's been no face-to-face contact.  They've never
even been to our property.  We're still paying an insurance
premium and they've said we have to continue to pay it."

Geelong photographer Mark Strachan has been a long-time AAMI
customer and upgraded to the complete replacement cover a few
years ago.

When his Wye River house burnt down, AAMI requested a cash
settlement, which was rejected by Mr. Strachan who wanted it
rebuilt by the insurer, which was an option available under the
policy.  AAMI offered to rebuild the home but at a cost
Mr. Strachan claimed was $200,000 lower than it should be.

Ms. Henderson raised the issue in Federal Parliament and claimed
AAMI had used companies which had no local knowledge and carried
none of the risk of rebuilding, meaning they were free to
underquote.

"The response has been so poor that I would be suggesting to
anyone who has complete replacement cover with AAMI to get out of
that policy," the Liberal MP said.

A spokesman for AAMI said the insurer was "committed to resolving
these claims as a priority".

"The majority of AAMI customers at Wye River had purchased the
optional 'Complete Replacement Cover' for their home policy," the
AAMI spokesman said.

"This provides full insurance cover, meaning customers cannot be
underinsured.  However, claims under these policies can take
slightly longer to settle as there is more work required to ensure
the customer's settlement is the correct amount."


AIU ONLINE: Hodge's Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A docket entry was made in the case captioned Mary A Hodge
Plaintiff, v. AIU Online, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-10383, (N.D. Ill.).

The minute entry before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan states
that the Court's previous order is amended to reflect Plaintiff's
motion to certify class is entered and continued to November 30,
2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the November 16 Notice of Docket Entry is available at
no charge at:

   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ei8tKXUw


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Sale of Soliris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIANO FRUTOS JUAREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL,
DAVID L. HALLAL, and VIKAS SINHA, Case No. 1:16-cv-08946
(S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing
to disclose that Alexion employed improper sales practices with
respect to Soliris.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased
or otherwise acquired Alexion securities between February 10,
2014, and November 9, 2016, both dates inclusive, seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Alexion is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in New
Haven, Connecticut.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Alexion, a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes
therapeutic products.  Among the Company's products is Soliris
(eculizumab), a monoclonal antibody for the treatment of
paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a genetic blood
disorder, and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a genetic
disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ALLSTATE CORP: Jan. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of The Allstate Corporation securities (ALL) from
October 30, 2014 through August 3, 2015, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Allstate investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Allstate class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-993.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that the reason for the sudden spike in its auto claims frequency,
which defendants claimed was due to external events beyond the
Allstate's control, was actually the result of Allstate's growth
in its auto policy business through higher risk drivers.  On
August 3, 2015, Allstate reported disappointing second quarter
2015 financial results, including a third consecutive quarter of
increased auto claims frequency, a 57% decline in operating
income, and operating earnings per share that were $0.34 below
analysts' consensus estimate.  On that same day, Allstate's CEO
stated that the lower quarterly profit was "driven by a
deterioration in auto insurance margins" and explained that
"[a]uto insurance margins decreased as higher claim frequency and
severity more than offset average auto insurance price increases."
On this news, shares of Allstate fell $7.04 per share to close at
$62.34 per share on August 4, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 9, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-993.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Bucks County Securities Suit Moved to E.D. Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial
Inc., Michael A. Carpenter, Christopher A. Halmy, David J.
Debrunner, Robert T. Blakely, Mayree C. Clark, Stephen A.
Feinberg, Kim S. Fennebresque, Gerald Greenwald, Franklin W.
Hobbs, Brian P. Macdonald, Marjorie Magner, Henry S. Miller,
Mathew Pendo, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Llc, Sandler O'neill & Partners,
L.P., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Scotia
Capital (USA) INC., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) INC., Raymond
James & Associates, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, Guggenheim
Securities, LLC, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Global Hunter
Securities, LLC, Height Securities, LLC, JMP Securities LLC, Loop
Capital Markets LLC, Blaylock Beal Van, LLC, Castleoak Securities,
L.P., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., The Williams Capital Group,
L.P., C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Lebenthal & Co., LLC, MFR
Securities, Inc., Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Drexel
Hamilton, LLC, Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc., Telsey Advisory Group
LLC, Toussaint Capital Partners, LLC, Academy Securities Inc.,
Freeman & Co. Securities LLC, and WM Smith & Co., Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00797 (Mich. Cir., October 21, 2016), was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 18, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover investment losses it claims to have
suffered that were allegedly the result of risks that were not
fully disclosed in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus
Supplement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with Ally's April 11, 2014 Initial Public
Offering.

Ally Financial is represented by:

      Daryl A. Libow, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Cassady, Esq.
      SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
      1700 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel.: (202) 956-7500
      Fax: (202) 956-6330
      Email: libowd@sullcrom.com
             cassadye@sullcrom.com

             - and -

      Marc De Leeuw, Esq.
      SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
      125 Broad Street
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel.: (212) 558-4000
      Fax: (212) 558-3588
      Email: deleeuwm@sullcrom.com

             - and -

      Thomas M. Schehr, Esq.
      James P. Feeney, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      400 Renaissance Center
      Detroit, MI 48243
      Tel: (313) 568-6659
      Email: tschehr@dykema.com

             - and -

      James P. Feeney, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      39577 Woodward Ave., Suite 300
      BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
      Tel: (248) 203-0841
      Email: jfeeney@dykema.com


AMARIN CORP: To Defend Against Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the company plans
a vigorous defense to a class action appeal.

The Company said, "The market price of our American Depositary
Shares, or ADSs, declined significantly after the October 2013
decision by the FDA Advisory Committee to recommend against
approval of Vascepa in the ANCHOR indication. We and certain of
our current and former executive officers and directors were named
as defendants in a class action lawsuit that generally alleged
that we and certain of our current and former officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements or material
omissions concerning the ANCHOR sNDA and related FDA regulatory
approval process in an effort to lead investors to believe that
Vascepa would receive approval from the FDA in the ANCHOR
indication. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs."

"We engaged in a vigorous defense of this lawsuit. On June 29,
2015, the court granted our first motion to dismiss the class
action litigation without prejudice. The court held that the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted and plaintiffs were given 30 days to refile an amended
complaint.

"On July 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
we again moved to dismiss. On April 26, 2016, the court granted a
second motion to dismiss, again without prejudice, with leave for
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

"On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court they would not
file another amended complaint and on September 21, 2016, filed a
brief in support of their appeal of the most recent dismissal to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We plan a vigorous defense to
this appeal."

Amarin Corporation plc is a biopharmaceutical company with
expertise in lipid science focused on the commercialization and
development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Dec. 21 Status Conference Set in "Pirinea" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Ambac is
not yet required to respond to the complaint, Joseph Pirinea,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Diana N. Adams, David Trick, Jeffrey
S. Stein and Nader Tavakoli (United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, Civil Action No.16-cv-05079-RMB,
filed on June 28, 2016).

On November 23, 2016, Ori Wilbush, the lead plaintiff in the case,
filed a first amended complaint against Diana N. Adams, Ambac
Financial Group, Inc., Cathy Matanle, Jeffrey S. Stein, Nader
Tavakoli, David Trick with Jury demand.

Judge Richard M. Berman held a status Conference on Oct. 27 and
another one is scheduled for Dec. 21 at 9:00 am.

The putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Ambac and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's
securities from November 13, 2013 through June 30, 2015. It
alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's (a) risk
management policies and procedures, (b) credit mitigation
strategies, (c) internal controls over financial reporting, and
(d) loss exposures on its public finance bond portfolio. In
particular, the suit alleges that defendants did not sufficiently
disclose Ambac's exposure to bonds issued by the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, despite allegedly being aware of significant risks
associated with those exposures.

On October 11, 2016, the court appointed Wilbush as lead plaintiff
and granted Wilbush's Motion for appointment of Levi & Korsinsky
as lead counsel.

Ambac said it is not yet required to respond to the complaint.
Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against it.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Memorandum Implementing Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has
issued a memorandum and order implementing its rulings in a
consolidated putative shareholder class action.

On or about August 18, 2016, four shareholders of American Capital
filed a consolidated putative shareholder class action allegedly
on behalf of holders of the common stock of American Capital
against the members of American Capital's Board of Directors in
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland due to the
directors' actions in approving the proposed merger between Ares
Capital and American Capital.

This action is a consolidation of putative shareholder complaints
filed against the directors of American Capital on June 24, 2016,
July 12, 2016, July 21, 2016 and July 27, 2016. The action alleges
that the directors failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary
duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by hastily
commencing a sales process due to the Board's manipulation by a
major shareholder, Elliott Management Corp. (together with its
affiliates, "Elliott Management"). The complaint also alleges that
the directors then failed to obtain for the shareholders the
highest value available in the marketplace for their shares. The
complaint further alleges that the proposed merger was the product
of a flawed sales process due to Elliott Management's continued
manipulation of the directors, the use of deal protection devices
in the proposed merger with Ares Capital that precluded other
bidders from making a higher offer to American Capital, and the
directors' conflicts of interest due to special benefits,
including the full vesting of American Capital stock options and
incentive awards, or golden parachutes the directors are due to
receive upon consummation of the proposed merger. Additionally,
the complaint alleges that Ares Capital's Registration Statement
on Form N-14, which was filed with the SEC on July 20, 2016 and
includes a joint proxy statement to American Capital's
shareholders, is materially false and misleading because it omits
material information concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the proposed merger. The complaint seeks to enjoin the
proposed merger between Ares Capital and American Capital. In the
event that the proposed merger between Ares Capital and American
Capital is completed, the complaint seeks to recover compensatory
damages for all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On or about August 26, 2016, the American Capital directors named
as defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated
amended class action complaint and moved for a protective order
staying all discovery, pending the resolution of the motion to
dismiss.

On or about September 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a cross-motion
for limited expedited discovery and an opposition to the American
Capital directors' motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery.
On or about September 21, 2016, the American Capital directors
filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for limited expedited
discovery and a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

On or about September 23, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the
pending motions after which it announced a summary of its rulings
denying the American Capital directors' motion to dismiss and
motion to stay discovery and granting plaintiffs' motion for
limited expedited discovery. On October 6, 2016, the Court issued
a memorandum and order implementing its rulings.

American Capital believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.

American Capital, Ltd. is a publicly traded global asset manager
and private equity firm.


AMERICAN FARMLAND: Faces Shareholders' Class Action in Baltimore
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on behalf
of all common stockholders of American Farmland Company ("American
Farmland" or the "Company") opposing the proposed acquisition of
American Farmland by Farmland Partners Inc.

The complaint seeks relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and
all other similarly situated shareholders of American Farmland and
asserts that the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value and/or
protect the interests of American Farmland shareholders.

If you currently own common stock of American Farmland and would
like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to
participate as a plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you,
please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentinvestigations.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Penalties Over Employment Structures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Christodoulou, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald,
reports that Amnesty International and Wesley Mission have been
dragged into the wages scandal around charity fundraising after a
court found a marketing company used by the charities paid its
collectors well below the minimum wage.

Marketing company Australian Sales and Promotions Pty Ltd and its
sole director Paul Ainsworth, were forced to pay $124,000 in
penalties on Nov. 11 after the Federal Circuit Court found the
company used complicated employment structures to avoid paying
employees the minimum wage.

The company was found to have breached sham contracting laws by
hiring staff as independent contractors, allowing them to sidestep
standard minimum wages and workplace conditions.

The firm had been previously penalised $23,000 for similar conduct
in 2013 when it underpaid five sales workers more than $9000 and
mis-classifying them as contractors.

On Nov. 11 Judge Robert Cameron found Ainsworth deliberately
contravened the Fair Work Act, "to enjoy the financial benefit of
paying (the charity collector) as an independent contractor while
also enjoying the power and authority of an employer in the
control it exercised over him in the course of his work".

The court heard the case of a 26-year-old British backpacker
Thomas Beckitt who was found to be underpaid $7853 while in
Australia on a 417 working holiday visa in 2013.

He was working on a commission basis, earning a daily rate as low
as $50 while raising money for charities including, Wesley Mission
and Amnesty International, over four months in shopping centres
around Sydney.

Mr. Ainsworth and ASAP, through their lawyers, did not respond to
questions from Fairfax.

Wesley Mission said it only used ASAP for nine months between
2013-14 and has not used it since.

"We are greatly saddened and disappointed that it has been found
that ASAP has treated one of its workers unfairly . . . we were
unaware that this was taking place," a spokesman said.

"Businesses not only have a legal but a moral obligation to their
workers," the charity said in a statement.

Amnesty International said it was made aware that fundraisers
engaged by ASAP were being underpaid in December 2014 and
terminated its contract three days later.

"Amnesty International is strongly opposed to any form of unlawful
behaviour in the sector, including in the engagement and
employment of fundraisers.  We are actively working with the
sector to ensure that all those engaged in fundraising are being
treated fairly," a spokeswoman said.

The Fair Work Ombudsman is investigating charities and charity
collectors as part of a national inquiry into the not-for-profit
sector.

Ombudsman Natalie James warned that simply calling a worker a
'contractor' was no defence against underpayment of genuine
employees.

"Where there is evidence of sham contracting occurring, the Fair
Work Ombudsman and the courts will look behind the often carefully
crafted legal documents and structures to determine the true state
of affairs for affected workers," she said.

It comes as another marketing firm, Appco, faces an estimated $80-
million class action following similar claims that it underpaid
its workforce by employing them as independent contractors and not
as employees.

The class action is being taken by former employees, some of who
claim they saw collectors getting paid as little as $2.50 an hour
to solicit charity donations on the street.

Appco has said it would vigorously defend its business structure
and the independent contractor model, but said if it lost the case
"the community needed to consider the serious consequences for
fundraising by Australia's charities."


AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Brockton Retirement System Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the judgment
approving the settlement in the case by the City of Brockton
Retirement System has now become final.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company.

On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012.

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26,
2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company
and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
November 21, 2014. The parties reached an agreement on a
settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include
releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and
the individual defendants and payment of $62 million.
Approximately $60 million of the settlement was paid by the
Company's insurers and approximately $2 million was paid by the
Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the
Company's applicable insurance policy).

On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on August 24, 2016, the court entered an order and
judgment granting final approval of the settlement. There has been
an appeal of the court's separate order relating to plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, dated August 25, 2016. However, no appeal was
filed from the court's August 24, 2016 order and judgment
approving the settlement and thus that judgment has now become
final.


AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has held
a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the
case, In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-
10083), and ordered the parties to submit additional documentation
in support of the settlement by November 4, 2016.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the
Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and
certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries.

On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under
ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of
the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014
and between December 14, 2011 and the present.  Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief.

On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of
this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by
members of the class of claims against the Company and the
individual defendants and payment of approximately $6 million.
Approximately $5 million of the settlement was paid by the
Company's insurer and approximately $1 million was paid by the
Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the
Company's applicable insurance policy).

On June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on October 11, 2016, the court held a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement and ordered the parties
to submit additional documentation in support of the settlement by
November 4, 2016. If the settlement is not approved by the court,
or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company
will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore,
in that event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate.


BF LABS: Court Allows Alexander to Amend Motion to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil sustained in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, motion for
leave to amend filed in the lawsuit styled KYLE ALEXANDER and
DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated v. BF LABS INC., d/b/a BUTTERFLY LABS, SONNY C. VLEISIDES
and JEFF OWNBY, Case No. 14-2159-KHV (D. Kan.).  The Plaintiffs
may file an amended motion to certify a class.

Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington bring this putative class
action on behalf of all persons, who prepaid BF Labs for bitcoin
mining machines between September 3, 2012, and July 17, 2014.
They assert claims against BF Labs, Sonny C. Vleisides and Jeff
Ownby under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.  They also bring
unjust enrichment claims under Kansas common law.  In addition,
against BF Labs, the Plaintiffs assert a common law claim of
conversion.

On September 22, 2016, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of settlement.  On September 30, 2016,
based on the memorandum and order, which denied approval of the
settlement, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot.  This matter comes before the Court on the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative,
motion for leave to amend.

According to Judge Vratil's memorandum and order, the Court
overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification based on
the reasoning set out in the memorandum and order denying approval
of the settlement.  The Court agrees that the term "moot" was
inartful.  The Court need not address the merits of Plaintiffs'
motion to reconsider, however, because the Court sustains the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended motion for class
certification.

In their amended motion, the Plaintiffs must address (among other
things) the obvious disconnect between the class, which the
amended complaint seeks to certify and the class, which the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify seeks to establish, Judge Vratil
said.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/ywt86W from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington are represented by:

          Aristotle N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
          Noah K. Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main, Suite #1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 256-3582
          Facsimile: (816) 337-4243
          E-mail: ari@woodlaw.com
                  noah@woodlaw.com

Defendants BF Labs Inc., Sonny Chris Vleisides and Jeff Ownby are
represented by:

          Mark A. Olthoff, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: molthoff@polsinelli.com

Defendant BF Labs Inc. is represented by:

          Michael S. Foster, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: mfoster@polsinelli.com

Receiver Eric L. Johnson is represented by:

          Bryant T. Lamer, Esq.
          Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 474-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
          E-mail: blamer@spencerfane.com
                  kholzhueter@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Lucinda Housley Luetkemeyer, Esq.
          GRAVES GARRETT LLC
          1100 Main St., Suite 2700
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 285-3880
          E-mail: lluetkemeyer@gravesgarrett.com

Movant Netsolus.com, Inc., is represented by:

          Ashley Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 399-5510
          Facsimile: (816) 221-2508
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com


APIGEE CORPORATION: Demurrer and Motion to Strike Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Apigee Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, that the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2016, that defendants' demurrer and
motion to strike a consolidated complaint remains pending.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2016, four purported
shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, our directors, certain of our executive officers, the
underwriters of our IPO and other defendants. The lawsuits were
brought by purported stockholders of ours seeking to represent a
class consisting of all purchasers of our stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with our April 2015 IPO."

"On May 26, 2016, the court consolidated these lawsuits into a
single action. On July 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against Apigee, members of Apigee's board of directors,
and certain executive officers. The consolidated complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and generally alleges that the Registration Statement
made materially false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts required to be disclosed. The consolidated
complaint seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, rescission or rescissory damages, and equitable relief.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously. To that end, defendants filed a
demurrer and motion to strike the consolidated complaint on
September 12, 2016."

The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of these
matters or to reasonably estimate a range of loss related to these
lawsuits, if any. If these lawsuits result in a material loss to
the Company, this may have an impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


BLUETOWER MOBILE: Hamilton Sues to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLUETOWER MOBILE, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-03393 (S.D.
Tex., November 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Bluetower Mobile LLC is a for profit corporation doing business in
the state of Texas.  Bluetower is engaged in the business of
servicing and installing equipment on telecommunications towers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
          Brad T. Wyly, Esq.
          Michael J. Bins, Esq.
          WYLY & COOK, PLLC
          4101 Washington Ave.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 236-8330
          Facsimile: (713) 863-8502
          E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
                  bwyly@wylycooklaw.com
                  mbins@wylycooklaw.com


BMW: March 31 Hearing Set for Defective Sunroof Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Thompson, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that a
California judge has set a schedule for hearings on a class-action
lawsuit against BMW that accuses the car maker of manufacturing
defective sunroofs.

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney of the Northern District of
California set the date for the hearing between BMW and plaintiffs
Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson at March 31, 2017. Both sides have
until that date to produce and file motions and "expert
witnesses," according to court documents.

Judge Chesney's ruling is the latest in a case originally brought
in 2013.  Ms. Sharma and Mr. Anderson alleged their vehicles
suffered water damage after the drainage tubes installed to pull
water away from the sunroofs did not work properly.

BMW has repeatedly argued for dismissal of the case, citing, among
other things, the suit does not reach the threshold of a class
action.

"First, the purported class is not ascertainable because it
includes many persons who have no claims against BMW North
America," BMW attorneys argued in 2013.  "Those putative class
members whose cars have never manifested the alleged defect, those
whose sunroofs leaked for reasons other than the alleged defect
and those whose cars are covered under warranty -- and thus
eligible for repair at no cost to them -- cannot claim they
suffered any cognizable injury and therefore lack standing."

BMW attorneys also claimed, "The class includes many vehicles
purchased more than ten years ago, meaning that the transactions
at issue are well outside the statutes of limitation of, for
example, plaintiffs' CLRA (three year), UCL (four year) and breach
of express warranty (four year).  At a minimum, persons whose
claims are outside the statutes of limitation should be excluded
from any proposed class."

A judge ruled against BMW in January 2014, saying the plaintiffs
made allegations "sufficient" to represent a class action at the
pleading stage of their case against the automaker over an alleged
sunroof defect.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 40,000 Mesh Claims Filed as of Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of
October 31, 2016, over 40,000 product liability cases or claims
related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been
asserted against the Company.

The Company said, "The pending cases are in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of four putative class actions, and fewer than 20 claims in the
United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury
associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products.
The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer
protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the
cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in
Massachusetts."

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. We have responded to those requests.

"As of October 31, 2016, we have entered into master settlement
agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an
aggregate of approximately 19,000 cases and claims. These master
settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution
of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional
upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds.  Of the 19,000 cases and claims, 6,000
have met the conditions of the settlement and are final.

"All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of
compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any
liability or wrongdoing. In addition, we continue to engage in
discussions with various plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential
resolution of pending cases and claims and, as of October 31,
2016, have made substantial progress in discussions with
plaintiffs' counsel representing approximately 3,000 additional
cases and claims.

"We have established a product liability accrual for known and
estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as
with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against
us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our
transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our
accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this
accrual may be required in the future as additional information
becomes available.

"While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs'
counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims
and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted
against us that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases
and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.
Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products
have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us.
We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is
representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims
related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products."


BP PLC: Feb. 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Court-Ordered Legal Notice

This Notice may affect your legal rights.
Please read it carefully.

Important Legal Notice authorized by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas about a Securities Class
Action Settlement

If you purchased or acquired American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
of BP p.l.c. ("BP") during the period from April 26, 2010 through
and including May 28, 2010, you may be entitled to a payment from
a class action settlement.

You may be entitled to a CASH payment.
In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 10-md-2185 (S.D.
Tex.)

THIS NOTICE ONLY PROVIDES LIMITED INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT. PLEASE VISIT www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com FOR MORE
INFORMATION.

There is a proposed Settlement of claims against BP, BP America,
Inc., and certain of their former officers (collectively,
"Defendants").  The proposed Settlement would resolve a lawsuit in
which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misled investors by
issuing false and misleading public statements between April 26,
2010 through and including May 28, 2010, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and seeks money damages for violations of the federal
securities laws.  Defendants deny any wrongdoing.  The parties
disagree on how much money, if any, could have been won if the
case went to trial.  If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve the case against Defendants and will pay money to eligible
Settlement Class Members.

Who's Included?  You are included if you acquired shares of BP
ADSs during the Class Period.  You may have held these shares
through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary.

What Can You Get?  The Settlement establishes a $175,000,000 ($175
million) Settlement Fund that, after payment of certain Court-
approved expenses, such as attorneys' fees and administration
costs, is intended for distribution to Settlement Class Members in
exchange for the settlement of this case and the release by
Settlement Class Members of the claims described above and other
related claims against Defendants.  The Settlement is explained in
detail in the Full Notice, and in the Stipulation of Settlement,
available at the website below.  The Proof of Claim is also
located at the website listed below.  Your share of the Settlement
Fund will depend on a number of factors, including the number of
valid Proofs of Claim that Settlement Class Members submit, the
number of shares of BP ADSs that you purchased or sold during the
Class Period and the dates of such purchases and sales.  The exact
amount, if any, of your payment will be determined according to a
Court-approved Plan of Allocation (a proposed version of which is
available at the website listed below).  If every eligible
Settlement Class Member sends in a valid Proof of Claim, the
average recovery per share will be approximately $0.97 per share
for purchases made from April 26, 2010 through and including May
3, 2010 and $0.11 per share for purchases made from May 4, 2010
through and including May 28, 2010, before deduction of Court-
approved expenses. You may contact the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel (see below) with any further questions.

How to Get Money?  To qualify for payment, you must submit a valid
Proof of Claim to In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box 173016, Milwaukee, WI
53217.  PROOFS OF CLAIM ARE DUE BY April 1, 2017.

Your Other Rights.  If you do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, you must exclude yourself by January 17, 2017, or you
will not be able to sue the Defendants for any claims relating to
this case.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from
this Settlement.  If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may
object to the Settlement by January 17, 2017.  The Full Notice,
located at the website listed below, explains how to exclude
yourself from, or object to, the Settlement.  The Court will hold
a hearing in this case on February 13, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and a request by Lead Counsel for up to 11.57% in attorneys' fees
($20,250,000), plus expenses not to exceed $5 million, for
litigating the case and negotiating the Settlement.  Other
plaintiffs' counsel may seek certain expenses not to exceed $3.12
million.  You may attend the hearing and ask to be heard by the
Court, but you do not have to.  If you do not take any action, you
will be legally bound by the Settlement and any orders or
Judgments entered in the Action, and will fully, finally, and
forever give up any rights to prosecute certain claims against the
Defendants.

For more information or a Claim Form:  866-778-9624 or
www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com; www.cohenmilstein.com;
www.bermandevalerio.com
Do not contact the Court, Defendants or their counsel in this
Action with questions.


CALIBER HOME: Class Certification Sought in "Grove" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned DEANN K. GROVE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER
HOME LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-CV-01460-PGB-TBS, (M.D.
Fl.), filed a motion for class certification and for leave to
supplement after discovery.

The Plaintiff filed the Motion and Memorandum for Class
Certification after meeting and conferring with Defendant in
accordance with the Local Rules. Defendant opposes the motion.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of:

     "All individual in the United States, who, during the
     applicable limitations period, (i) paid a convenience fee
     for paying online or over the phone (ii) which was collected
     or retained in whole or in part by Defendant, (iii) in
     order to make a payment on any residential mortgage debt,
     (iv) where the convenience fee was not expressly authorized
     in the agreement creating such debt, (v) and where
     Defendant's records indicate that the debt had not been
     current for 30 or more consecutive days at the time
     Defendant began servicing it.  All employees of the Court
     and Plaintiff's counsel are excluded from this class."

The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a Florida Class:

     "All individuals in the State of Florida, who, during the
     applicable limitations period (i) paid a convenience fee
     for paying online or over the phone, (ii) which was
     collected or retained in whole or in part by Defendant,
     (iii) in order to make a payment on any residential
     mortgage debt, and (iv) which was identified only as a
     Western Union Speed Pay fee. All employees of the Court and
     Plaintiff's counsel are excluded from this class."

According to the Plaintiff, the case satisfies the prerequisites
for class certification laid out in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedures. Defendant Caliber Home Loans, LLC, collected
thousands of "convenience" fees when customers attempted to pay
over the phone or through its website. These fees were neither
expressly authorized under the mortgage agreements Caliber used
nor specifically permitted by law. The case concerns whether the
collection each and every one of those fees violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f(1). This provision of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits debt collectors like Caliber from
collecting "any amount (including any interest fee, charge, or
expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount
is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or
permitted by law." In addition, says the motion, Caliber hid the
nature of this fee from all consumers in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

The Plaintiff says the uniform wrongful conduct caused identical
injuries to her and all members of the putative classes. Because
of the unlawful fees charged by Caliber, all its customers who
paid by phone or over the internet paid more on their consumer
debts than they lawfully owed. These injuries can be calculated as
simply the total convenience fees paid during the period of time
defined by the applicable statute of limitations.

The Plaintiff says membership in the proposed classes, as well as
the amount of damages suffered by each class member, can be easily
defined using Defendant's own records. The proposed classes are
ascertainable and satisfies each of the prerequisites to
certification under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), and the
motion should be granted in its entirety.

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) reserve ruling on
class certification; (2) allow discovery to take place on the
relevant issues; (3) grant Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental
motion or brief at the conclusion of such discovery; and (4) grant
class certification after full briefing of the issues.

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=08tKxRSG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Frank Davis
     John E. Norris
     Kristan B. Rivers
     DAVIS & NORRIS LLP
     2154 Highland Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: 205-930-9900
     E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
             jnorris@davisnorris.com
             krivers@davisnorris.com

          - and -

     RICHARD SHUSTER, Esq.
     1413 South Patrick Drive, Suite 7
     Satellite Beach, FL 32937
     Telephone: 321-622-5040
     Fax Number: 321-259-3255
     E-mail: richshuster@gmail.com


CASINO RAMA: Faces Class Action Over Massive Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that class-
action lawyers wasted little time on Nov. 11 in jumping on word of
a cyberattack on an Ontario casino in which sensitive information
was stolen.

The lawyers announced plans for a proposed lawsuit that would seek
$50 million in damages from Casino Rama north of Toronto, and
began asking possible victims to sign on.

"The class action will be commenced on behalf of employees,
customers and vendors of the Casino Rama Resort whose confidential
information was compromised by the privacy breach," the lawyers
said.

"The proposed representative plaintiffs in the lawsuit are
customers who gave the resort their confidential information,
including financial information."

The statement of claim would be filed in Superior Court on Nov. 7
given the Remembrance Day holiday on Nov. 11, said lawyer
Ted Charney, one of the lawyers involved.

On Nov. 10, Casino Rama Resort in Rama, Ont., warned its
customers, vendors as well as current and former staff to keep an
eye on their bank accounts, credit cards and other financial
information.

The casino said it had "recently" discovered becoming the victim
of a cyberattack that resulted in the large-scale data theft.
Stolen data appeared to include internal financial and security-
incident reports, emails, payroll data, client information, social
insurance numbers, and dates of birth, according to the casino.

"The hacker claims that the employee information dates from 2004
to 2016, and that some of the other categories of information
taken date back to 2007," the casino said in a statement on its
website.  "We can confirm that certain employee and customer
information was stolen."

The statement also warned that the hacker could publish the stolen
data.

"This is a massive privacy breach," Mr. Charney said in announcing
the proposed lawsuit.  "We still do not know the whole story but
it looks like Casino Rama rolled the dice with employee, customer
and vendor data rather than invest in state-of-the-art security
measures."

No allegations have been tested in court and it was still much too
early for any statement of defence.

"We continue to work with the proper authorities on the ongoing
investigation and are limited in in how much detail we can
provide," casino spokeswoman Jenna Hunter said in an email on Nov.
11.  "We deeply regret the this situation and recognize the
seriousness of the issue."

Any trial, should the action be certified, is likely years away.
The resort, which has 2,500 slot machines and more than 110 gaming
tables and is operated by Penn National Gaming Inc., said the
games themselves weren't hacked.

"Game performance and setup are independent of other Casino Rama
Resort networks," it said.

Located on Rama First Nation, the casino opened 20 years ago and
is Ontario's only First Nations commercial gaming house.

It bills itself as the "premier entertainment destination" in the
province and has featured big name live acts such as The
Tragically Hip and Jerry Seinfeld, and shows such as "Dancing with
the Stars."

The two law firms involved in the proposed action are Charney
Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg.


CBS RADIO: Misclassified Ad Sales Staff, Monroe Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Nina Monroe wants to represent a class claiming in
Sacramento, Calif., that CBS Radio misclassified members of its
advertising sales team as overtime-exempt, and that it failed to
provide meal and rest periods.

The case is captioned, NINA MONROE, an individual, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. CBS RAD10, INC.;and
Does l-100,inclusive, Defendants., (Cal. Super., Sacramento
County).

She is represented by:

     Lawrence J. Salisbury, Esq.
     SALISBURY LEGAL CORP
     656 56 Ave., Suite R
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 241 -21 60
     Email: lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com

          - and -

     Mark A. Redmond, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. REDMOND
     731I Greenhaven Dr., Suite 268
     Sacramento, CA 9583 I
     Telephone: (916) 444-8240
     Facsimile: (916) 444-8242
     Email: mr@markredmondlaw.com


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Wants Gender Bias Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabe Friedman, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that attorneys
for Chadbourne & Parke, and six of its partners, on Nov. 14 filed
a motion in federal court in Manhattan seeking to dismiss a
proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses the firm and its
management of discriminating against women partners.

The suit was originally filed in August by a partner in the
Washington, D.C. office, who was joined by a former partner.  It
accuses Chadbourne of systematically discriminating against its
women partners by denying them equal pay and bonuses commensurate
with what male partners earn.

In a 25-page motion for summary judgment, the firm claims that as
a matter of law, the two plaintiffs cannot sue the firm.

"As a threshold legal matter, the Court does not have authority to
adjudicate the merits of these utterly baseless claims for a
simple reason," wrote Kathleen McKenna -- kmckenna@proskauer.com -
- an attorney at Proskauer Rose who is representing the firm on
the 25-page motion.  "The entire premise of Plaintiffs' complaint
-- that they were or are employees who fall under employment
discrimination laws -- is wrong."

Ms. McKenna wrote that the plaintiffs in the suit -- Kerrie
Campbell, a present-day litigation partner in Washington, D.C. and
Jaroslawa Johnson, a former partner who managed the Kiev office
but departed in 2014 -- are or were equity partners. Therefore, as
owners, and not employees, they cannot bring suit against the firm
under employment discrimination laws, including Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Washington D.C. Human Rights Act,
Ms. McKenna wrote.

She also asked the court to dismiss the class claims, writing that
Campbell and Jaroslawa make claims that are too different from one
another to meet the class commonality requirements outlined by the
Supreme Court in its 2011 decision, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes.

In addition, Ms. McKenna filed an affadavit from firm managing
partner Andrew Giaccia claiming that there are only 23 women
partners who could join the suit.  This, she wrote, would make the
potential class size too small to meet requirements.

The plaintiff's attorney David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler, said via email
he disagreed and would respond in court.

"Chadbourne's latest filings are simply another attempt to silence
two women who had the courage to speak out against the culture of
entrenched sexism and chauvinism at the firm,"
Mr. Sanford said in a statement.  "We are confident we will defeat
Chadbourne's motions and ultimately will vindicate the rights of
female attorneys at the firm."

Chadbourne has tapped Ms. McKenna and Evandro Gigante --
egigante@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer, to represent it.

The proposed class-action named as defendants, the firm, Giaccia
and four onetime members of the management committee -- Lawrence
Rosenberg, Paul Weber, Howard Seife and Marc Alpert, who left the
firm this summer to join Loews Corp as general counsel.  In
addition, it also named partner Abbe Lowell, head of the firm's
litigation department.

Chadbourne filed a counterclaim of breach of fiduciary duty
against Campbell for engaging in an alleged smear campaign against
the firm's reputation in the press.


CHARLOTTE PALM: "Autry" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Charie Autry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Charlotte Palm Corp., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00797 (W.D. N.C., November 18, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and
statutory penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Charlotte Palm is a domestic business corporation registered in
the State of North Carolina since 1996, with its principal place
of business located at 6705-B Phillips Place Court, Charlotte, NC
28210, where Plaintiff worked as a server and a bartender from
June 2003 to July 31, 2016. Aurty claims she was paid for less
time than what was recorded on her time cards, including but not
limited to weeks during which she worked overtime and off-the-
clock work.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
      PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
      15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Suite 280
      Charlotte, NC28277
      Telephone: (704) 612-0038
      E-Mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com

              - and -

      L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
      409 East Boulevard
      Charlotte, NC 28203
      Telephone (704) 234-7442
      E-Mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Final Payments Under Reed and Sikora Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
final payments under the settlement agreement in the Reed and
Sikora cases were made in September 2016 following the end of the
claims period.

On April 11, 2013, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).

A similar lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed
in Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.
et al; Case No. SCV27073).

By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora
cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases were subsequently
coordinated together in Los Angeles County by order of the
Judicial Council.

On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce
judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under
the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

On March 11, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion in Case
No. SCV0032820. The parties participated in voluntary mediation on
June 25, 2015 and have executed a memorandum of understanding with
respect to the terms of settlement, which is subject to court
approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of the
actions.

On January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement for Case Nos.
SCV0032820 and SCV27073.

On June 10, 2016, the court entered the order and judgment
granting final approval of the class action settlement.   Final
payments under the settlement agreement were made in September
2016 following the end of the claims period.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Faces "Masters" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Masters v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.

On June 27, 2016, the Company gave notice to the court that Case
Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 may be related.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Guglielmo" Case in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Guglielmo v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions
(Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-
in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements.

On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the
agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with
prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action
at a limited number of the Company's restaurants in the State of
New York.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of
penalties and other monetary payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based upon the
current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Brown" Case
--------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Brown v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.


On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging
that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements as set forth in the California Labor Code.

On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in
addition to other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091).

On April 18, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration of plaintiff's wage statement claim
and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual
arbitration.

On June 28, 2016, the Company gave notice to the court that Case
Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620 may be related.

On September 6, 2016, the parties engaged in settlement discussion
and are negotiating the terms of a final settlement agreement.
The final settlement agreement will be subject to Court approval
and is intended to be a full and final resolution of Case No.
CIV150491.

"Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an
immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement," the Company
said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Wage & Hour Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Tagalogon v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee
filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court alleging that the Company improperly classified its
managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to
provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620).

On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status
conference statement at which time the Company gave notice to the
court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be
related.  On April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the
complaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Dec. 5 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Rodriguez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties are waiting for a ruling on the Company's motion to
dismiss in the case, Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.

The Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the request as well as as
an amended complaint.

The trial Court has rescheduled oral argument concerning the
defendant's motion to dismiss to December 5, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.

Judge Joseph F. Bianco is presiding over the case.

On April 24, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that the Company violated the New York deceptive business
practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuities
on split payment checks (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02006-JFB-AKT).  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary
payments.

On September 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint.

On October 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
limit the scope of the complaint to the State of New York only.
The parties are waiting for a ruling on the Company's motion to
dismiss.

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Suit Alleging Rigging of Bids
----------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company is defending lawsuits alleging various violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust laws. In 2016, putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in
Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court of Kansas, in each case against the
Company and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that,
since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, the defendants
conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of
oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the
Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The
lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as
well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would
restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the
lawsuits.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Hearing Not Yet Set on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing
date for the motion has not been set on the Company's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the
Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125%
Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes).

In April 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the
Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125%
Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the
Company's December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company
privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien
Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior
unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are
qualified institutional buyers (QIBs).

According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company's private
debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under
Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company unjustly
enriched itself at the expense of class members by reducing
indebtedness and reducing the value of the 2020 Notes and the 2022
Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney's fees, in addition
to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created
for the benefit of the Second Lien Notes are null and void and
that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under the
indentures for the 2020 Notes and the 2021 Notes.

In June 2016, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and in
October 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. A hearing date for the motion has not been set.


CHRISTOPHER J CHRISTIE: "Slaughter" Suit in N.J. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Brian R. Martinotti granted two
motions to dismiss the case captioned CHARLES S. SLAUGHTER, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-8327-BRM-LHG, (D.N.J.).

The motions to dismiss were filed by Defendants (i) Christopher J.
Christie, Gary M. Lanigan, Vincent Prieto, Stephen Sweeney, David
Thomas, and Sherry Yates; and (ii) Rutgers University.

Two motions for class certification and pro bono counsel by
Plaintiffs, forty pro se individuals who are current or former
prisoners at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC) in
Avenel, New Jersey, are dismissed as moot.

All claims in the Complaint are dismissed without prejudice, rules
the Court.

Judge Martinotti ordered the Clerk to serve the Order and the
accompanying Opinion upon the parties, and to close the case.

A copy of the November 16 Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4nlHHsWn


COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Jailor Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case MICHELLE RASBERRY, Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF vs.  COLUMBIA
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No. 1:16-cv-1074-SOH (E.D. Ark.) asks the
Court to conditionally certify a Rule 23 Class with the following
definition:

  All of Defendant's salaried jailors (or similar positions) who
  Worked in the State of Arkansas at the Columbia County Jail at
  any time after August 04, 2013.

The Plaintiff is a current salaried jailor for Columbia County,
Arkansas.  She seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). She also brought this action to
recover the same relief under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
(AMWA).

The motion says Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
affords Plaintiff the right to have an opt-out class established
for the claims arising under the AMWA, and that Class
certification under Rule 23 is an appropriate mechanism for
litigating claims under the AMWA.

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jR7VCNAD

MICHELLE RASBERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

   Chris Burks, Esq.
   Stacy Gibson, Esq.
   Josh Sanford, Esq.
   SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
   ONE FINANCIAL CENTER
   650 SOUTH SHACKLEFORD, SUITE 411
   LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211
   TELEPHONE: (501) 221-0088
   FACSIMILE: (888) 787-2040
   E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
           stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
           josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


COMCAST CORP: Illegally Withdrew Customers' Funds, Danow Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVEN DANOW, AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE MORRIS HITZIG REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
COMCAST CORP. and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-06052-PD (E.D. Pa., November 17, 2016), is brought over
alleged violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all former Comcast customers,
whose bank accounts have been illegally accessed and funds
withdrawn subsequent to the termination of the service contract
between the parties, and where the former customer owed Comcast no
unpaid legitimate charges.

Comcast Corp. is incorporated in Pennsylvania and has its
corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Comcast
Communications, LLC, is wholly-owned by Comcast Corp., and is also
headquartered in Philadelphia.  The Defendants operate as media
and technology companies providing cable television, telephone and
internet services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


COMERCIAL MEXICANA: "Lopez" Suit Seek OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odilia Baten Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Comercial Mexicana Corp. (D/B/A El Cerrito
Restaurante), Norberto Martinez, Alberto Martinez And Isabel
Martinez, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09009, (S.D. N.Y. November
18, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime pay and spread-of-hours
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and
the Fair Play Act.

El Cerrito Restaurante is a bar/restaurant owned by Norberto
Martinez, Alberto Martinez and Isabel Martinez located at 1182
Elder Avenue, Bronx, New York 10472 where Lopez worked as a
waitress.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Sought in "Cooke" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned ROBERT COOKE on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAMCO
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-08094-MWF(RAOx) (C.D. Ca.), asks the
Court to certify one class and three subclasses in this matter:

* Plaintiff Class:

  All individuals who were formerly or currently jointly employed
  by a temporary employment service agency and Damco Distribution
  Company who worked at Damco's South Gate, California
  distribution center as a warehouse laborer at any time since
  February 25, 2010.

* Security Screening Subclass:

  All individuals who were formerly or currently jointly
  employed by a temporary employment service agency and Damco
  Distribution Company who worked at Damco's South Gate,
  California distribution center as a warehouse laborer at any
  time since February 25, 2010 and had to pass through security
  screenings while off-the-clock.

* Meal Period Subclass:

  All individuals who were formerly or currently jointly
  employed by a temporary employment service agency and Damco
  Distribution Company who worked at Damco's South Gate,
  California distribution center as a warehouse laborer at any
  time since February 25, 2010 who were subject to Damco's 30
  minute station-to-station policy.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint him as the named
representative of the class, appoint his counsel as counsel for
the class, and require the Defendant to identify all members of
the class.

A hearing on the Motion is set for January 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the motion dated is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NSsbPioL

Plaintiff ROBERT COOKE on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated is represented by:

   Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
   HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
   555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
   Los Angeles, California, 90013
   Telephone: (213) 533-4160
   Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
   E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
           awotton@hamnerlaw.com

        - and -

   Christopher A. Olsen, SBN 236928
   OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
   1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Telephone: (619) 550-9352
   Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
   E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Diplomat
Pharmacy, Inc. ("Diplomat" or the "Company") (DPLO).  Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired Diplomat shares between
October 9, 2014 and November 2, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the
January 9, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian
Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights
free of charge.  You can also reach us through the firm's website
at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Diplomat
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose: that the Company lacked adequate internal controls
over its financial reporting and thus could not adequately
calculate DIR fees; that Diplomat's hepatitis C segment was not
performing as previously disclosed to investors; that the Company
overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and that as a result of
the above, Diplomat's statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.  On November 2, 2016,
Diplomat announced third quarter 2016 results that fell below
investors' expectations.  The Company also lowered full year 2016
guidance.  When this news was announced, shares of Diplomat fell
in value, causing investors harm.

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


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Suit in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Garland County,
Arkansas, against the Company remains in its early stages.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints.

On June 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in
a lawsuit against another provider that may impact this action. In
that case, the Court ruled that a lawsuit against several
facilities formerly operated by Golden Living could proceed as a
class action.

The lawsuit against the Company remains in its early stages and
has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: "McKinnon" Plaintiffs May File 5th Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned SANDRA McKINNON, ET AL. v. DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP, INC., ET AL., Case No. 12-cv-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal.):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to allow Roger Tien and
      Jaime Gavilan Cabello to intervene permissively in the
      litigation and the Plaintiffs' motion to file a fifth
      amended complaint;

   -- denying with prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification; and

   -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude the
      opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Donald
      Lichtenstein.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendants
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Dollar Rent-a-Car, Inc.,
and DTG Operations, Inc.  The gravamen of the case concerns the
Defendants' alleged practice of selling collision or liability
damage waiver policies in connection with vehicle rentals to the
Plaintiffs without providing adequate notice (through signage,
oral statements, and otherwise) that the coverage might be
duplicative of other policies (e.g., through auto insurance or
credit card protection plans) already held by the Plaintiffs.

The Court sets a case management conference for December 12, 2016,
at 2:00 p.m.  By December 5, 2016, the parties will file a case
management statement consistent with the requirements of the Local
Rules and the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/dJCF4D from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool, and Intervenor
Plaintiffs Melinda Basker and Chanh Tran are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor, PMB #131
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 860-2503
          Facsimile: (888) 331-9633
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

Plaintiffs Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool are represented by:

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          S. Scott Garrett, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  sgarrett@whatleykallas.com

Plaintiff Sandra McKinnon is represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          60 State Street, Seventh Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (617) 573-5090
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

Defendants Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., and Dollar Rent
a Car, Inc., are represented by:

          Daniel Justin Weiss, Esq.
          Jill Marie Hutchison, Esq.
          John F. Ward, Esq.
          Ross B. Bricker, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dweiss@jenner.com
                  jhutchison@jenner.com
                  jward@jenner.com
                  rbricker@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Keller, Esq.
          Tracy M. Clements, Esq.
          KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-8330
          Facsimile: (415) 249-8333
          E-mail: kkeller@ksrh.com
                  tclements@ksrh.com

Defendant DTG Operations, Inc., is represented by:

          Daniel Justin Weiss, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dweiss@jenner.com

Defendant DTG Operations, Inc., is represented by:

          Jill Marie Hutchison, Esq.
          John F. Ward, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: jhutchison@jenner.com
                  jward@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Keller, Esq.
          Tracy M. Clements, Esq.
          KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-8330
          Facsimile: (415) 249-8333
          E-mail: kkeller@ksrh.com
                  tclements@ksrh.com


DS HEALTHCARE: Response to Amended Complaint Due Dec. 19
--------------------------------------------------------
DS Healthcare Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs had until
November 2, 2016 to file an amended complaint, which DS Healthcare
must respond to no later than December 19, 2016.

On March 29, 2016, DS Healthcare, Mr. Daniel Khesin, and certain
former members of the Board of Directors were sued in a class
action styled, Prasant Shah v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., et. al.,
Case No. 16-60661, which is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  A later-filed class
action has been consolidated.

The class action arises from the Company's March 23, 2016 and
March 28, 2016 8-K filings, which stated, in pertinent part, that
the audit committee had concluded that the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements of the Company for the two
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 (the
"June and September 2015 Quarters"), should no longer be relied
upon because of certain errors in such financial statements, and
that Daniel Khesin had been terminated for cause and removed a
Chairman and a member of the Board of Directors.  Plaintiffs had
until November 2, 2016 to file an Amended Complaint, which DS
Healthcare must respond to no later than December 19, 2016.

The Company also received the first of three related shareholder
derivative demands on March 29, 2016.  A mediation concerning the
class action and the derivative demands was scheduled for October
17, 2016, in Miami, Florida.


DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Jenkins" Demands Show of Sponsorship Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the purported class action case "MARTIN JENKINS, NIGEL HAYES,
AND ALEC JAMES, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:16-01283 (M.D.N.C.,
November 1, 2016)," Plaintiff moved to compel Duke University to
comply with a properly served subpoena requesting the production
of documents or, in the alternative, to transfer this Motion. The
subpoenaed documents that Duke has refused to produce are media,
sponsorship, and similar contracts that many other parties and
non-parties (including other universities similar to Duke) have
already produced in the underlying multi-district litigation.

The case alleges that the National Collegiate Athletics
Association and its five most prominent member conferences have
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to eliminate
competition and artificially fix the compensation that D-I
Football Bowl Subdivision and D-I men's basketball athletes may
receive for their athletic services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     T. Thomas Cottingham III, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
     100 North Tryon Street
     29th Floor
     Charlotte, NC 28202-1078
     Phone: (704) 350-7700
     Fax: (704) 350-7800

        - and -

     David G. Feher, Esq.
     Jennifer M. Stewart, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
     200 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10166-4193
     Phone: (212) 294-6700
     Fax: (212) 294-4700
     E-mail: dfeher@winston.com
             jstewart@winston.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Faruqi & Faruqi
regarding the In re Dynavax Technologies Corporation Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS

Case No. 3:13-CV-02796-CRB

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION ("DVAX") FROM APRIL 26,
2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 10, 2013 ("CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on February 3, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Charles R. Breyer, at the United States Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 6-17th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94102, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the claims in the Action for the principal amount of
$4,500,000 for the Class should be approved by the Court as fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement
Fund, less Litigation Expenses, and award to the Class
Representatives not to exceed $10,000, and expenses not to exceed
$150,000 should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED DVAX COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
FROM APRIL 26, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 10, 2013, YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.  You
may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement
of Class Action ("Settlement Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form by writing to In re Dynavax Technologies
Corp. Sec. Litig., c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10196, Dublin, OH 43017-3196,
visiting the website www.DynavaxSecuritiesLitigation.com, e-
mailing the Claims Administrator at
questions@DynavaxSecuritiesLitigation.com, or calling the Claims
Administrator toll free at 1-855-907-3230.  Inquiries other than
requests for the above-referenced documents may also be made to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

          Richard W. Gonnello
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue
          26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than January 21, 2017,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  NOTE THAT NO
CLAIMS LESS THAN $10.00 WILL BE PROCESSED OR PAID.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired DVAX common stock and you
desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion postmarked no later than January 9, 2017, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Settlement Notice
referred to above.  All Class Members who do not timely and
validly request exclusions from a Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed to the Clerk of the
Court at the address below and postmarked no later than January 9,
2017:

          CLERK OF THE COURT
          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
          450 Golden Gate Avenue
          Box 36060
          San Francisco, CA 94102

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED:  October 14, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


EAGLE MARINE: O'Neal Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama granted conditional certification in the case
IVAN O'NEAL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons Plaintiff, v. EAGLE MARINE CONTRACTING, LLC d/b/a EM
CONTRACTING and d/b/a EM CONTRACTING LLC, RAPHAEL G. BURCHFIELD,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-00401-KD-B, (S.D. Ala.).

"[[]t is well settled that the plaintiff's burden at this initial
stage 'is not heavy'," wrote Judge DuBose in her order dated
November 16, 2016, a copy of which is available for free at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aNYSpJPY

Here, she said, the parties have stipulated that Plaintiff has met
this initial burden. Specifically, the joint motion states:

  The parties stipulate that Plaintiff O'Neal can meet the
  lenient standard required for conditional certification. In
  addition, the parties believe that conditional certification
  and sending of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs will
  promote and facilitate early resolution of this case by
  settlement. If the case does not settle, Defendant reserves the
  right to seek to have the collective action decertified at the
  conclusion of discovery.

Further, wrote Judge DuBose, as outlined in the joint motion:

  Defendant agrees to provide Plaintiffs counsel a list of all
  current and former employees in the putative class with last
  known addresses. That list will be provided by November 15,
  2016. Plaintiffs['] counsel will send notice to the putative
  class by December 1, 2016. Putative class members shall have
  until January 31, 2017 to opt-in to the case by returning a
  Consent Form to Plaintiffs counsel, which Plaintiffs['] counsel
  shall file with the Court . . . After January 31, 2017, the
  parties agree to engage in good faith settlement negotiations.
  The parties will present a motion to approve settlement to the
  Court by February 28, 2017. If the case does not settle by that
  date, the parties will file a supplemental Rule 26 Report with
  agreed-upon deadlines.

Mr. O'Neal filed this collective action complaint on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, against Defendants alleging
that Plaintiffs were underpaid for overtime hours in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.


EVERYDAY HEALTH: "Ebbs" Sues Over Merger with Project Echo
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ebbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Everyday Health, Inc., Doug McCormick, Ben Wolin,
Habi B. Kairouz, David Golden, Sharon Wienbar, Myrtle Potter, Dan
Evan and Laizer Kornwasser, Case No. 1:16-cv-08982 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 18, 2016), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing a merger, or rescinding it, if merger is realized.  The
suit further seeks an award of rescissory damages, disbursements
of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees
and expenses and such other and further equitable relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Everyday Health was acquired by funds managed by Ziff Davis, LLC
through its wholly-owned Delaware company, Project Echo
Acquisition Corp. that will merge with and into Everyday Health
which is to be the surviving wholly-owned subsidiary of Ziff.
Everyday Health shareholders will receive $10.50 per share in cash
for each share of common stock that they own. Defendants allegedly
issued incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Recommendation
Statement filed with the SEC, failing to disclose and/or
materially misrepresent information concerning the sales process,
financial projections prepared by the Board and the financial
analyses supporting the merger consideration. Additionally,
Defendants agreed to lock up the transaction with deal protection
devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful
competing offer for the Company, thus depriving better
alternatives to the merger and any other matching/competing
proposals.

Defendant Everyday Health is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal
executive offices at 345 Hudson Street, New York, NY, 10014. The
Company develops and operates digital marketing and communications
platforms for healthcare marketers mainly in the United States,
enabling consumers and healthcare professionals to manage their
daily health and wellness needs through websites, mobile
applications, and social media.

Plaintiff owns shares of Everyday Health common stock.

Doug Mccormick, Ben Wolin, Habi B. Kairouz, David Golden, Sharon
Wienbar, Myrtle Potter, Dan Evan and Laizer Kornwasser are members
of the Everyday Health Board of Directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investors Class Suit Over Stock Crash
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
misrepresentations about Facebook's video advertising revenues
cost shareholders $4 billion in one day while enriching its
executives, four investors say in a federal class action in Las
Vegas.

Plaintiffs Aurangzeb Nagy, Robert Vannah, George Kleanthis and
Zanetta Kleanthis say in their lawsuit filed on November 22, in
Nevada that they are among those who held common shares in
Facebook from April 1, 2015, through Nov. 16.  The investors say
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the social media
giant's other officers concealed a defect in their advertising
metrics used to measure revenue from videos.  As a result,
"shareholders purchased or held Facebook stock believing that the
company had the ability to sustain growth in paid advertising and
could successfully execute its paid advertising plan and related
metrics," according to the complaint.

The investors say that on April 17, 2015, Facebook started
analyzing data from its advertising metrics and discovered it had
miscalculated several that measured the performance of ad content.
Soon after learning of the miscalculations and before notifying
the public, the investors say Zuckerberg and the other Facebook
executives "began to sell of Facebook stock in unprecedented
quantities."  It wasn't until Sept. 23 of this year -- nearly 18
months after discovering the miscalculations -- that Facebook
publicly acknowledged the error in its paid video-advertising
metric, which caused inflated revenue projections for video
advertising, the investors say.

Facebook downplayed the effect of its error and did not disclose
other known errors or alert investors of their potential impact on
Facebook's revenue, according to the complaint.

Facebook reported more advertising metrics errors in October, and
on Nov. 3 announced it expected a significant decrease in ad
revenue for the next year and would take on more debt, according
to the lawsuit.

On Nov. 3, Facebook shares trading under the FB symbol closed at
$120, down from $127.17 a day earlier, according to NASDAQ. The
investors say the $7 drop represents a $4 billion decline in
value.  Facebook shares closed at $120.84 on November 23.

The investors say the market did not realize the problem's full
extent until Nov. 16, when Facebook's stock price closed at
$116.24.  After the decline, Facebook initiated its first shares
buy-back program, according to the lawsuit.

Named as defendants are Zuckerberg, Facebook, CFO David Wehner,
COO Sharon Sandburg, Chief Product Officer Christopher Cox, Chief
Technology Officer Michael Todd Schroepfer, Chief Accounting
Officer Jas Athwal, vice president and general counsel Colin
Stretch, director Jan Koum, and vice president David Fischer.

Facebook did not immediately respond to an email request for
comment on November 23, morning.

Las Vegas attorney Robert Eglet of the Eglet Prince law firm filed
the complaint and was not immediately available for comment by
telephone on November 23, morning.

The case is captioned, AURANGZEB NAGY, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, ROBERT VANNAH, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated; GEORGE KLEANTHIS,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
ZANETTA KLEANTHIS, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. FACEBOOK, INC., a foreign
corporation; MARK ZUCKERBERG, an individual, DAVID WEHNER, an
individual, SHARON SANDBURG, an individual, CHRISTOPHER COX, an
individual, MICHAEL TODD SCHROEPFER, an individual, JAS ATHWAL, an
individual, COLIN STRETCH, an individual, JAN KOUM, an individual,
DAVID FISCHER, an individual, and DOES 1 though 20, inclusive,
Defendants (D. Nev.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ.
     ROBERT M. ADAMS, ESQ.
     ERICA D. ENTSMINGER, ESQ.
     EGLET PRINCE
     400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
     Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
     Telephone: (702) 450-5400
     Facsimile: (702) 450-5451


FACEBOOK INC: Halts Racially-Targeted Housing, Employment Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Cox, writing for Atlanta Black Star, reports that as of
November 11, Facebook will stop allowing those purchasing housing,
employment, and/or credit ads that are exclusionary by the social
network refers to as "ethnic affinity."

Previously, Facebook let advertisers exclude certain "ethnic
affinities," which include groups like Black people, Latino
people, and Asian people.  This was not a new practice for them or
those who sell ads, however, Facebook came under fire for the
practice after a recently-released ProPublica report that detailed
and illustrated just precisely how this could be used to exclude
people in a way that may violate federal anti-discrimination laws,
rather than just to try and reach people for specific interests.

In the report, Propublica writes and demonstrates with screenshot
images that they were able to buy a Facebook ad for a housing
event that would not be shown to Hispanic, Black, and Asian
American users of the social media platform.  ProPublica was able
to quickly and easily place the ad, despite a Facebook policy,
which allegedly bans use of its ad targeting tools to discriminate
and exclude Facebook users.

The subsequent public outcry from civil right groups, lawyers, and
policymakers were laced with concern that this feature on Facebook
could be used to violate federal laws prohibiting discriminatory
advertisements for things like job opportunities and housing.

Under the law, the federal Fair Housing Act, both the entity
marketing the ad as well as the publisher of a discriminatory
housing ad can be punished.

To make matters worse for Facebook, a group of users filed a
class-action lawsuit against Facebook about this very issue.

Facebook told Atlanta Black Star that it has no way of knowing
users' races or ethnicities, and that their special categorization
of people by "ethnic affinity" is determined solely by what posts
and pages people "like" and engage with.

"Discriminatory advertising has no place on Facebook," said
Erin Egan, Facebook's vice president for United States public
policy and chief privacy officer, on Nov. 13 in a blog post.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge RAM Owners File RICO Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Owners of 2500 and 3500 Dodge RAM trucks filed a class-action
lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler and engine manufacturer Cummins
Inc., stating that the two entities conspired to knowingly deceive
consumers and regulators of illegally high levels of diesel
emissions in their vehicles, according to leading automotive
litigation law firm Hagens Berman.

The lawsuit accuses the two of committing fraudulent concealment,
false advertising, and violating the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and consumer-protection laws by
intentionally misleading the public, concealing emissions levels,
illegally selling noncompliant polluting vehicles, knowingly
profiting from the dirty diesels and using fraudulently gained
emissions credits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to use on further production of high-polluting vehicles.

According to the complaint, the affected Cummins diesel engines
serve to conceal true emissions output, and in doing so cause the
catalytic converter to wear out more quickly, resulting in the
vehicle burning fuel at a higher rate, and often requiring
customers to replace the converter after the warranty has expired
at a cost of approximately $3,000-$5,000.

Affected Vehicles include the following models that are equipped
with Cummins diesel engines: 2007-2010 Dodge RAM 2500 (2WD, 4WD),
2011-2012 Dodge RAM 2500 (non-SCR systems, 2WD, 4WD), 2007-2010
Dodge RAM 3500 (2WD, 4WD) and 2011-2012 Dodge RAM 3500 (non-SCR
systems, 2WD, 4WD).  If you own an affected vehicle, find out more
about your consumer rights to potential compensation.

"The sheer level of fraud and concealment between Chrysler and
Cummins is unconscionable, and we believe we have uncovered a
deeply entrenched scheme," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman.  "Chrysler and Cummins spent years lying through
their teeth and making empty promises to deliver the cleanest
trucks on the market -- lip service to deceptively dominate what
they saw as a profitable market."

"The two companies touted value to consumers in their marketing,"
Mr. Berman added.  "Was it valuable to consumers to force them to
pay $3,000 to $5,000 for needless repairs of worn-out parts? Did
it give consumers value to publicly lie to sell hundreds of
thousands of noncompliant, polluting vehicles?"

The lawsuit, filed Nov. 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, seeks reimbursement for a
proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased the affected
trucks, as well as putative damages for the defendants' unlawful
behavior, according to the suit.

                        About the Defect

In 2001, the EPA announced stringent emissions standards for
heavy-duty highway diesel engines, slated to take effect in 2010.
The lawsuit states Chrysler and Cummins "saw a golden business
opportunity."

In order to produce a diesel engine that had desirable power and
fuel economy, yet emissions levels low enough to meet government
standards, Chrysler and Cummins developed the 6.7-liter diesel
engine with sophisticated NOx adsorber technology.

The primary emission control after-treatment technologies include
a diesel particulate filter (DPF) and a NOx adsorber catalyst
system to capture and reduce NOx into less harmful substances,
such as nitrogen and oxygen.  Testing shows that the catalysts are
not durable and do not meet emission standards.  Furthermore,
injection of fuel to regenerate the DPF occurs with excessive
frequency.  NOx emissions during these regeneration events are
nearly 10 times the emission standards, according to the lawsuit.

The legal limit of NOx emissions for stop-and-go driving is 200
mg/mile.  When tested, Dodge RAM 2500s emitted 702 mg/mile on
average, and 2,826 mg/mile at maximum emissions.  The California
(and other "Section 177" states that have adopted the California
standard) NOx limit for highway conditions is 400 mg/mile. Testing
for the 2500 shows an average of 756 and max of 2,252 mg/mile.
All the while, during these periods of excessive emissions, the
vehicle's on-board diagnostic (OBD) system does not capture fault
codes nor provide any indication of excessive emissions to the
operator.

                       Deceptive Marketing

The lawsuit highlights the marketing of the Adsorber Engine, and
the Dodge RAM 2500 and 3500 as the "'strongest, cleanest,
quietest'" diesel engine in its class, as well as "squeaky clean,"
"super clean," "a model of cleanliness," "so clean it warrants a
class of its own," and "durability so impressive, it approaches
the inexhaustible."

"The very environmental laws and regulations Chrysler and Cummins
worked so hard to circumvent exist for reasons that are crucial to
public health," Mr. Berman said.  "In 2012, the World Health
Organization declared diesel vehicle particulate emissions to be
carcinogenic, and about as dangerous as asbestos."

The lawsuit states that the successful marketing of the defective
polluting vehicles is "due to the tight collaboration among the
RICO Defendants -- what Cummins called the 'most formidable
partnership in the working world.'"

The complaint states the defendants' action amount to a scheme to
increase revenue and profits and to increase the emissions credits
they earned thereby allowing them to sell dirty vehicles as well,
all for an additional profit.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit on behalf of owners
of Dodge RAM 2500 and 3500 trucks.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


FIREEYE INC: Brings Class Cert. Challenge to Calif. Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that FireEye, Inc., and
the director and officer defendants have appealed a class
certification ruling in the securities litigation to the
California Supreme Court.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of
Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and
officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and
omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March
2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common
stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission.

On July 11, 2016, the court certified a class of purchasers of
FireEye stock in the March 2014 offering.

On September 8, 2016, the California Court of Appeal denied
FireEye's and the director and officer defendants' petition for a
writ of mandate appealing the Superior Court's denial of their
motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

On September 16, 2016, FireEye and the director and officer
defendants appealed to the California Supreme Court.

GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba Seeks to Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in SCOTT DOLEMBA, on behalf of plaintiff and the
classes defined below, Plaintiff, vs. FORA FINANCIAL, LLC, and
FORA FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, both doing business as "FORA
FINANCIAL", Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-10651, (N.D. Ill.), asks the
Court to enter an order determining that the action may proceed as
a class action against defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) and Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (ICFA).

The classes plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:

     Count I, TCPA: (a) all persons (b) who, on who, on or
     after February 6, 2016, (c) received calls from defendants
     on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer
     or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

     Count II, ICFA: (a) all persons with phone numbers in the
     Illinois area codes (b) who, on who, on or after February 6,
     2016, (c) received calls from defendants on their cell
     phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a
     prerecorded or artificial voice.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class.

The Plaintiff says he is filing this class motion with the
complaint to avoid any "other defenses" as described by the
Seventh Circuit in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015). The Chapman court overruled the mootness issue
expressed in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.
2011).

Despite the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Gomez v.
Campbell-Ewald Company, 136 S.Ct. 663, 672 (2016), holding that an
unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a class action, a
question remains as to "whether the result would be different if a
defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual
claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then
enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount." Defense counsel
are encouraging the making of such tenders. Some courts are
accepting the argument. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 15 C
11038, 2016 WL 4593825 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2016). Consequently,
the plaintiff submits that the interests of the class are best
protected filing of a class motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     Julie Clark, Esq.
     Heather Kolbus, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
     20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 739-4200
     Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
     E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FMQ5wjQL


GERON CORPORATION: California District Court Stays Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the California
District Court has signed an order temporarily staying the class
action lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the class
action lawsuits.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported class action
securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or
polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients
and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These
lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the
purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March
14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the
California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the
purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on
September 19, 2014.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities
lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California
District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District
Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the
California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with
the Class Action Lawsuits.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District
Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the
allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied
our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us.

"On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. On September 9, 2016, the
California District Court signed an order temporarily staying the
Class Action Lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the
Class Action Lawsuits.

"It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or
allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these
same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and
directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses
and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously."

Geron is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports the
clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat,
in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen Biotech, Inc., or
Janssen. Telomerase is an enzyme that enables cancer cells,
including malignant progenitor cells, to maintain telomere length,
which provides them with the capacity for limitless, uncontrolled
proliferation.


GOLDMAN SACHS: SunEdison Securities Litig. Pending in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a case related to
the TerraForm Global and SunEdison Securities Litigation is
currently pending in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo
County.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters, placement
agents and initial purchasers named as defendants in several
putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in
October 2015 relating to the $675 million July 2015 initial public
offering of the common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm
Global), the August 2015 public offering of $650 million of
SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock, the June
2015 private placement of $335 million of TerraForm Global Class D
units, and the August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million
principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes. SunEdison is
TerraForm Global's controlling shareholder and sponsor.

On October 4, 2016, the cases then pending in federal court were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

An additional case is currently pending in the Superior Court of
California, San Mateo County.

The defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison and
certain of their directors and officers.

Defendants have moved to dismiss certain of the actions.

The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offerings, assert claims under federal
securities laws and, in certain actions, state laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as
rescission or rescissory damages.

TerraForm Global sold 154,800 Class D units, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $155 million, to the
individual plaintiffs. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares
of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering,
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139
million and sold 2,340,000 shares of TerraForm Global common stock
in the initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $35 million. GS&Co., as initial purchaser,
sold approximately $49 million principal amount of TerraForm
Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering.

On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of
standing and mootness is pending.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects.

On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of
whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other
of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the
magistrate judge's decision.

On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate
judge's decision on intervention.

On September 28, 2015, and by a supplemental motion filed July 11,
2016 (after the second intervenor ceased to be an employee), the
defendants moved to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack
of standing and mootness.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Currencies-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that GS&Co. and Group
Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on June 3, 2015 and most recently amended on July 15, 2016 on
behalf of certain ERISA employee benefit plans. The claims brought
against GS&Co. and Group Inc. generally allege that the defendants
violated ERISA in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets, which caused
losses to ERISA plans for which the defendants provided foreign
exchange services or otherwise authorized the execution of foreign
exchange services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as restitution and disgorgement in an unspecified
amount. By an order dated September 20, 2016, plaintiffs' claims
against GS&Co., Group Inc. and other defendants who have settled
in another action relating to an alleged conspiracy to manipulate
foreign currency exchange markets were dismissed with prejudice,
and plaintiffs appealed on October 20, 2016.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Indirect Forex Buyers' Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that GS&Co. and Group
Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on September 26, 2016 on behalf of putative indirect
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The complaint
generally alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign
currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and
state antitrust laws and seeks injunctive relief as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Commodities-Related Litigation Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the district court
has dismissed claims in Commodities-Related Litigation based on a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously
consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth
quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative
class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust
laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and
aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and
other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble damages.

On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs
defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on
September 24, 2014, and the Second Circuit affirmed the district
court's decision on August 9, 2016. The remaining plaintiffs filed
amended complaints on April 9, 2015, and on October 5, 2016, the
district court dismissed their claims based on the Second
Circuit's decision.

GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions
relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on
November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on July 27, 2015, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical
platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On
September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a consolidated interest rate swap antitrust
litigation

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative
antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
consolidated amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016
generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at least
January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate
swaps. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among the
defendants named in antitrust actions relating to the trading of
interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by two
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated with the class
action described above for pretrial proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016
generally asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy
among the defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on
the plaintiffs' respective swap execution facilities and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount.


GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case titled MICHAEL J. MINER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT PAYMENT
SERVICE, INC., d/b/a GOV PAY NET, Defendant, Case No.: 1:14-cv-
07474, (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves to certify the action as a
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

According to the Plaintiff, this is a renewal of his previously
filed placeholder motion for class certification.

The Court initially entered and continued Plaintiff's motion
generally, but then struck it without prejudice considering the
Seventh Circuit's decision in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796
F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015), which overruled the reasoning in
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2011),
which had required placeholder motions for class certification.

Since the Court entered its order striking Plaintiff's motion, the
Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez has
revived the potential need for such in this circuit. 136 S. Ct.
663, 672, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016) ("We need not, and do not, now
decide whether the result would be different if a defendant
deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim
in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters
judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").  While the Plaintiff
disagrees that another placeholder motion for class certification
is necessary in this case, he is renewing his motion out of an
abundance of caution.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, of which Plaintiff is a
member:

   All residents of the State of Illinois who paid a bail deposit
   with a credit or debit card and who were charged a fee by
   GovPayNet for purported bail bond services during the period
   September 25, 2009, through the date of final judgment.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any of its officers,
directors or employees, Class counsel, the presiding judge, named
plaintiffs in any substantially similar actions and members of
their immediate families.  The Plaintiff reserves his right to
amend the above class definition based on discovery and the proofs
at trial.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to find that this action satisfies
the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set forth in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and certify the Class. He also asks the Court
to designate him as representative of the Class and his counsel as
Class counsel.

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=phuheiWn

Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael J. Miner are:

     William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
     SWEETNAM LLC
     100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 757-1888
     E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com

          - and -

     Larry D. Drury, Esq.
     LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
     100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 346-7950
     E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com

          - and -

     Joseph L. Planera
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. PLANERA AND ASSOCIATES
     222 Vollmer Road, Suite 2A
     Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411
     Telephone: (708) 755-5000
     E-mail: jplanera@sbcglobal.net


GS ELECTECH: January 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

In Re: WIRE HARNESS CASES

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

Master File No. 12-md-02311
Honorable Marianne O. Battani

2:12-cv-00101-MOB-MKM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS
ACTION WITH G.S. ELECTECH AND TOKAI RIKA DEFENDANTS AND
HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED WIRE HARNESS PRODUCTS
IN THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY FROM A DEFENDANT DURING THE PERIOD
FROM JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH MAY 5, 2014.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE, AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME?

This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Orders of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The purpose
of this Notice is to inform you of proposed settlements with
Defendants G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S. Wiring Systems Inc., and
G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc. ("G.S. Electech"), and Tokai Rika Co.,
Ltd. and TRAM, Inc. ("Tokai Rika") (collectively, the
"Settling Defendants").  Under the terms of the proposed
settlements, the Settling Defendants will pay a total of $3.9
million and provide cooperation to assist Plaintiffs in the
prosecution of the claims against the remaining Defendants.
You were previously notified of the existence of this class
action, the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims, and a
settlement with Lear Corporation ("Lear") in the amount of $4.75
million.  That settlement was approved by the Court
in an Order dated January 7, 2015.  When added to the Lear
settlement, the proposed G.S. Electech and Tokai Rika
settlements, in the amounts of $3.1 million and $800,000,
respectively, bring the total settlements in this case to $8.65
million, plus accruing interest (the "Wire Harness Settlement
Fund").

This litigation is part of coordinated legal proceedings involving
a number of parts used in motor vehicles.  The
litigation, and the proposed settlements, relate solely to Wire
Harness Products purchased directly from a Defendant.
These proceedings do not relate to, and have no effect upon, cases
involving any other product or purchaser.

Wire harnesses are electrical distribution systems used to direct
and control electronic components, wiring,
and circuit boards in motor vehicles.  "Wire Harness Products,"
for purposes of each of the proposed settlements,
means wire harnesses and the following related products:
automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable
bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals,
high voltage wiring, electronic control units, fuse
boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, power distributors, and speed
sensor wire assemblies used in motor vehicles.

If you purchased Wire Harness Products in the United States
directly from any of the Defendants identified below during the
period from January 1, 2000 through May 5, 2014 (the "Class
Period"), you are a member of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class
and the Tokai Rika Settlement Class and have the rights and
options summarized here:

   -- You may remain in the G.S. Electech Settlement Class and/or
the Tokai Rika Settlement Class and be eligible to share in the
proceeds of those Settlement Funds under a claims procedure that
will be instituted in the future;

   -- You may exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement
Class and/or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, in which case you
will not be bound by any settlement from which you exclude
yourself and will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of that
Settlement Fund;

   -- If you do not exclude yourself from a Settlement Class, you
may object in writing to that proposed settlement or to the
request to use a portion of that Settlement Fund to pay litigation
expenses, and you may appear at the hearing where the Court will
determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as
fair, adequate and reasonable, and whether a portion of the
Settlement Fund may be used to pay litigation expenses; and

   -- You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your
own counsel at your own expense.

You do not need to take any action at this time if you wish to
remain in both of the Settlement Classes.  You should retain all
of your records of Wire Harness Products purchases for use in the
claims procedure that will be instituted at a later date.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES?

On October 21, 2016, the Court certified Direct Purchaser G.S.
Electech and Tokai Rika Settlement Classes for purposes of
disseminating notice of the proposed settlements.

Both the G.S. Electech Settlement Class and the Tokai Rika
Settlement Class are defined as follows:

All individuals and entities that purchased Wire Harness Products
in the United States directly from one or more Defendants or their
co-conspirators from January 1, 2000 through May 5, 2014.

For purposes of each of the Settlement Class definitions set forth
above, the following entities are Defendants:

Chiyoda Manufacturing Corporation;
Denso Corporation;
Denso International America, Inc.;
Fujikura Ltd.;
Fujikura Automotive America LLC;
Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.;
American Furukawa, Inc.;
Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. f/k/a Furukawa Lear
Corporation and Lear Furukawa Corporation;
G.S. Electech, Inc.;
G.S. Wiring Systems Inc.;
G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc.;
Lear Corporation;
Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc.;
Leonische Holding Inc.;
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation;
Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc.;
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.;
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.;
Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd.;
Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc.;
K&S Wiring Systems, Inc.;
Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.), Inc.;
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.;
TRAM, Inc.;
Yazaki Corporation; and
Yazaki North America, Inc.

Plaintiffs Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc.; Craft-Co Enterprises,
Inc.; Findlay Industries, Inc.;
Cesar-Scott, Inc.; Martinez Manufacturing, Inc.; South Star
Corporation; and ACAP, L.L.C., f/k/a Aguirre, Collins
& Aikman Plastics, LLC have been appointed by the Court to serve
as "Class Representatives" for the G.S. Electech
and the Tokai Rika Settlement Classes.  The Court has appointed
the law firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen
LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios
LLP; and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C. to serve as "Settlement Class Counsel" for the G.S. Electech
and the Tokai Rika Settlement Classes.

WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT?

Beginning in 2011, class action lawsuits were filed against
Defendants by Plaintiffs, who are direct purchasers
of Wire Harness Products.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
entered into a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition for Wire Harness Products by agreeing to rig bids for,
and to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices
of, Wire Harness Products, in violation of federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the
conspiracy, they and other direct purchasers of Wire Harness
Products have been injured by paying more for those
products than they would have paid in the absence of the alleged
illegal conduct, and they seek recovery of treble
damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of
attorneys' fees.

Each of the Settling Defendants denies Plaintiffs' allegations and
has agreed to settle this matter in order to
avoid the expense and burden of further litigation.  The Court has
not issued any findings or rulings with respect to the
merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses.  This is a
settlement with the Settling Defendants only.  Plaintiffs
are continuing to prosecute the case against the remaining non-
settling Defendants.

WHAT RELIEF DO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS PROVIDE?

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class, have
entered into a settlement with G.S. Electech
dated April 26, 2016, under which G.S. Electech has paid the
amount of $3.1 million into an escrow account. G.S.
Electech has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the
prosecution of the lawsuit against the remaining Defendants.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, have
entered into a settlement with Tokai Rika dated
July 5, 2016, under which Tokai Rika has paid the amount of
$800,000 into an escrow account.  Tokai Rika has also
agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the prosecution of the
lawsuit against the remaining Defendants.

The nature and extent of the cooperation agreed to by each of the
Settling Defendants is described in detail
in their respective Settlement Agreements.  Copies of the
Settlement Agreements are on file with the Clerk of Court
and available online at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com.

Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlements to
ensure a fair and reasonable resolution to this matter and to
provide benefits to the members of the Settlement Classes while
recognizing the existence of complex, contested issues of law and
fact; the risks inherent in such complex litigation; the
likelihood that, in the absence of settlement, future proceedings
would take several years and be extremely costly; and the
magnitude of the benefits resulting from the settlements in light
of the possible range of recovery that could be obtained through
further litigation, including the risk of no recovery.  Settlement
Class Counsel believe that it is in the best interests of the
Settlement Classes to enter into the proposed settlements and
resolve this litigation as to the Settling Defendants.

This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed
settlements. The Settlement Agreements
contain other important provisions, including releases of certain
claims against the Settling Defendants, and
you can refer to the Settlement Agreements, which are on file with
the Clerk of Court and available online at
www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com, for the complete terms of
the settlements. The proposed settlements must
receive Final Approval by the Court in order to become effective.

If you are a member of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the
Tokai Rika Settlement Class, and the proposed settlement that
relates to that Settlement Class is approved and becomes
effective, you will be bound by its terms, including the release
provisions.  If you wish to object to approval of a settlement,
you may do so but only in accordance with the procedures set forth
below.  If you do not object to a settlement, you do not need to
take any action at this time to indicate your support for, or lack
of objection to, that settlement.

HOW DO I REMAIN IN A SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO?

If you are a member of either or both of the G.S. Electech or
Tokai Rika Settlement Classes as defined above, you will
automatically remain in that Settlement Class unless you elect to
be excluded.  If you wish to remain in a Settlement Class, you do
not need to take any action at this time and your interests will
be represented by the Class Representatives and by Settlement
Class Counsel.  You will have no responsibility to individually
pay attorneys' fees or expenses.  Any such fees and expenses will
be paid solely from amounts obtained from the Defendants, whether
by settlement or judgment, and must be approved by the Court after
notice to you and a hearing.  If you choose, you
may also have your own attorney enter an appearance on your behalf
and at your expense.

If you remain in the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai
Rika Settlement Class, and a final judgment order dismissing that
Defendant from the litigation becomes final and unappealable, you
will be bound by that judgment.

As a member of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai
Rika Settlement Class, you will be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the applicable Settlement Fund pursuant to a claims
procedure that will begin at a later date.  Settlement Class
Counsel are not presently asking the Court to distribute any Wire
Harness Settlement Fund proceeds.  If you remain a member of
either of the Settlement Classes, you will receive additional
notice at a later date, and you will have an opportunity to object
to and be heard in connection with the proposed plan of
distribution at that time.

Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of
Wire Harness Products in the United States directly from any
Defendant during the period from January 1, 2000 to May 5, 2014.
You may need those documents to complete a claim form in the
future, which would be subject to inquiry and verification, if
the settlements are approved or if damages are otherwise recovered
from either of the Settling Defendants or
another Defendant.

Settlement Class Counsel also are not seeking payment of
attorneys' fees at this time.  In connection with seeking final
approval of the settlements, Plaintiffs will seek permission from
the Court to use up to twenty percent (20%) of each Settlement
Amount to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including, but not
limited to, costs for economic experts, depositions, costs related
to document reproduction and review, and other costs incurred in
prosecuting the case.

At a later date, Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses, as well as payment of incentive awards to the Class
Representatives.  When Settlement Class Counsel seek payment of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and
incentive awards from the Wire Harness Settlement Fund, you will
receive notice and be given an opportunity to object and be heard
by the Court at that time.


WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN EITHER OF THE SETTLEMENT
CLASSES?

If you wish to exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement
Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, you must send a request
for exclusion, in writing, via certified mail, return receipt
requested, postmarked no later than January 4, 2017, to Settlement
Class Counsel, and to counsel for the Settling Defendants, at the
addresses set forth below and to the following address:

Wire Harness Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
P.O. Box 5110
Portland, OR 97208-5110

Your request for exclusion must identify the Settlement Class or
Classes from which you are seeking exclusion and must include the
full name and address of the purchaser (including any predecessor
or successor entities and any trade names).  You are also
requested to identify the Defendant(s) from which you purchased
Wire Harness Products during the Class Period, the Wire Harness
Products purchased, and the dollar amount of those purchases.  If
you validly exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement
Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, you will not be
bound by any decision concerning that Settlement Class, and you
may pursue individually any claims you may have against that
Defendant, but you will not be eligible to share in the settlement
proceeds attributable to that Defendant.

WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENTS, AND
HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS?

The Court will hold a hearing on January 25, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether
the proposed G.S. Electech and Tokai Rika settlements should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also
consider at the hearing whether to approve Plaintiffs' request to
utilize a portion of the settlements to pay Plaintiffs' litigation
expenses.  The hearing may be continued without further notice.

If you do not exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement
Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, and you wish to object
to that settlement or to Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion
of that Settlement Amount to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses,
you must do so in writing.  Your objection must include the
caption of this litigation, must be signed, and be filed no later
than January 4, 2017, with the Clerk of Court, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West
Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the
following counsel, postmarked no later than January 4, 2017:

Steven A. Kanner
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500

Gregory P. Hansel
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU
& PACHIOS LLP
One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3000

Joseph C. Kohn
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700

Eugene A. Spector
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF
& WILLIS, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class
Donald M. Barnes
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
1900 K Street, NW, Suite 1110
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 778-3000

Counsel for the G.S. Electech Defendants
W. Todd Miller
BAKER & MILLER PLLC
2401 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
Telephone: (202) 663-7820
Counsel for the Tokai Rika Co. Defendants

If you do not object to the proposed settlements or to Plaintiffs'
request to utilize a portion of the settlement
proceeds to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, you do not need
to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this
time.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS
CHANGES?

If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on the
mailing label, or if your address changes,
please send your correct address to the above-referenced P.O. Box.

The Settlement Agreements, Complaint, and other public documents
filed in this litigation are available for review during normal
business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West
Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226.  Copies of the Settlement
Agreements and certain other documents relevant to this litigation
are available at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com.  Questions
concerning the proposed settlements, this Notice, or the
litigation may be directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel
identified above.

Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

Dated: October 21, 2016 BY ORDER OF:

The United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division


HONEY HOLDING: Judge Dismisses Chinese Honey Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Honey Holding I, Ltd., d/b/a Honey Solutions ("Honey Solutions"),
an industrial honey importer and processor, on Nov. 14 disclosed
that the Honorable Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District
Court in Chicago has dismissed the remaining aspects of the
putative Class Action Lawsuit, which had alleged that many of the
U.S. honey industry's largest importers were involved in a global
conspiracy to transship Chinese honey and evade millions of
dollars of anti-dumping duties (Case No. 13-CV-02905 in the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division).  The Lawsuit had alleged claims against numerous honey
importers like Honey Solutions, whose honey supply chain has been
verified by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's C-TPAT
program ("Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism") and also
certified members of True Source Honey, LLC ("True Source"),
including Bees Brothers, LLC., Ecotrade International, Inc., Odem
International, Inc., and Sunland Trading, Inc.  True Source is a
voluntary system that seeks to maintain honey origin traceability.
Other named Defendants in the Lawsuit included National Honey,
Inc., Jun Yang and Urbain Tran.

Judge Gottschall's Order of final dismissal was entered after the
Court conducted a fairness hearing to approve the settlements with
each of the remaining Defendants in the putative Class Action
Lawsuit for a total amount of $796,312.00, which some have
described as comparable to a "cost of defense" amount paid to
close a nuisance lawsuit.  Each of the Defendants have vigorously
contested the claims throughout the litigation, and Defendants
have now been released as part of their settlement agreements.

In April 2015, the honey supply chain for Honey Solutions was
certified by the C-TPAT program as maintaining security management
practices to mitigate against contraband honey.  Earlier this
year, Honey Solutions was awarded C-TPAT Level 2 certification.
Additionally, Honey Holding has been a proponent of third-party
laboratory testing on 100% of its foreign honey imports for origin
confirmation utilizing mellisopalynology (pollen analysis).  This
third-party origin certification, combined with standard
documentation, including certificates of origin and U.S. Customs
forms, insures the customers an undeniable validation of the
country of origin for the honey they purchase from Honey
Solutions.

                  About Honey Holding I, Ltd.

Located in Baytown, Texas, Honey Holding --
http://www.honeysolutions.com-- is one of the largest processors
of industrial honey in the United States, supplying most of
America's premier bakers and food processors.


HUMANA INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott") on Nov. 14
disclosed that it has filed an action in the United States
District Court - Western District of Kentucky against Humana, Inc.
and Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "Humana" or
"Defendants").

Defendants are health insurance companies along with pharmacy
benefit managers ("PBMs").  The PBMs are retained by the health
insurance companies, on behalf of the plan or third-party payors,
to provide the pharmacy benefits to plan members, which includes,
inter alia, establishing a formulary of drugs that will be
covered, a network of pharmacies that will serve as participating
pharmacies for plan participants to obtain their prescriptions,
copayment amounts, coinsurance amounts, and deductibles.

Specifically, the action relates to Defendants engaging in a
scheme to defraud plan members by artificially inflating the
copayment of medically necessary prescription drugs well above the
cost of the drug.  Plan participants, including Plaintiff and the
Class, pay inflated copayments to participating pharmacies in
exchange for receiving their prescription drugs.  Unbeknownst to
the plan participants, Defendants artificially inflate the
purported costs of the prescription drugs in the form of increased
copayments and then "claw back," or recoup, from the pharmacies a
large portion of the copayments.

Class members are consumers who pay artificially inflated
copayments for medically necessary, covered prescriptions that
cost plan participants more than if they did not have insurance.
If you would like addition information, please contact Michael
Burnett of Scott+Scott (Scottlaw@scott-scott.com, (800) 404-7770,
(860) 537-5537).

           About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Investors Sue Diller Over Stock Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
media mogul Barry Diller is trying to retain control over
IAC/InterActiveCorp for him and his family in perpetuity by
issuing a new class of stock without public shareholder approval,
three shareholders in a class action filed on November 22.

The so-called "entrenchment scheme" was motivated, according to
the shareholders, to protect Diller and his family against
dilution of their voting shares in strategic acquisitions. In
fact, the shareholders say "Diller threatened to harm IAC by
blocking acquisitions that would dilute his voting and managerial
power."

They add, "Diller would approve value-enhancing acquisitions only
if the board issued Class C stock that cemented his control."

A proxy issued in support of the proposed reclassification states
that the IAC board will amend the company's certificate of
incorporation to create non-voting Class C stock.

Currently there are two classes of IAC stock: common stock, which
has one vote per share, and Class B stock, which has ten votes per
share.

In the reclassification, each IAC common stock and Class B stock
will get a dividend of one share of non-voting Class C stock.

According to the proxy statement released in support of the Class
C stock issuance, reclassification will "provide IAC with a
mechanism to issue common equity securities in the future for
acquisitions and equity awards without diluting the voting power
of the IAC common stock and the Class B common stock."

If IAC undertook multiple acquisitions without issuing the Class C
stock, Diller's voting power would ultimately transfer to the
public stockholders, according to the shareholders.

But with the proposed reclassification, "all benefits flow to the
Diller parties, while all detriments fall on the shoulders of the
public stockholders" because no "independent body was empowered to
protect the public stockholders," the shareholders say in their
complaint, which was filed in Delaware's Court of Chancery.

Though a "special committee" was formed to review the transaction,
the shareholders say it was "comprised of a majority of directors
with financial relationships and/or longstanding friendships with
Diller."

And with Diller threatening to block any potential acquisition
through his voting power, the shareholders say the special
committee gave in to his demands.
Now 74 years old, Diller is "improperly using his control to
perpetuate himself in power for the remainder of his life, and
then pass control to family members who have never run IAC,"
according to the complaint.

Alexander von Furstenberg, Diller's 46-year-old stepson, is the
"heir apparent" despite "little to no operating experience, the
shareholders say.

"If Diller was determined to transfer control to family members,
then he should pay for that privilege," the shareholders say in
their complaint.

They add that if Diller's scheme succeeds, "the board will have
ceded all of its power to the Diller family, retaining no ability
to regain influence, even if this new corporate structure proves
calamitous."

But they also say they're not surprised that "the board and Diller
have refused to provide any vote on this proposal to IAC's public
stockholders."

Shareholders Charles Miller, Jessie Lew Mahoney and Janet Ann
Denton are represented by Joel Friedlander of Friedlander & Gorris
in Wilmington, Delaware, and by Mark Lebovitch of Bernstein
Litowitz in New York City.

Their claims include breach of fiduciary duty against both Diller
and the directors. They seek class certification, a declaration
that Diller breached his duties as controlling stockholder, an
order barring the issuance of Class C stock and damages.

IAC is a media and Internet company that encompasses more than 150
brands and products.

The case is captioned, CHARLES MILLER, JESSIE LEW MAHONEY, and
JANET ANN DENTON, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated stockholders of IAC/InterActiveCorp., Plaintiffs, v.
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, BARRY DILLER, EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., MICHAEL
EISNER, BONNIE HAMMER, BRYAN LOURD, ALAN SPOON, VICTOR KAUFMAN,
CHELSEA CLINTON, ALEXANDER VON FURSTENBERG, JOSEPH LEVIN, DAVID
ROSENBLATT, and RICHARD F. ZANNINO, Defendants, (Del. Ch.).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

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

Of counsel:

     Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
     John Vielandi, Esq.
     David MacIsaac, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: (212) 554-1400

          - and -

     Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
     Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
     THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
     208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 685-0969

          - and -

     Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
     Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
     PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
     65 Broadway, Suite 828
     New York, NY 10006
     Tel: (212) 725-1000


INDIVIOR: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Suboxone Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Lang, writing for Capital News Service, reports that since
Suboxone film strips were removed from the Medicaid Preferred Drug
List in July, the amount of the drug recovered in Maryland
correctional facilities as contraband has decreased by 41 percent,
according to Maryland's Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services.

Suboxone -- a drug used to treat opiate addiction -- has a high
risk of addiction and dependence, and can even lead to death when
paired with other drugs or alcohol, according to the Food and Drug
Administration.

The medication is easily smuggled into state prisons and jails
when it is in the form of a strip, designed to be placed under a
user's tongue, said Gary McLhinney, director of professional
standards at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Corrections.

"It is an epidemic, the amount of Suboxone that comes in,"
Terry Kokolis, director of corrections for Anne Arundel County,
Md., said at the Nov. 16 meeting of the legislature's Joint
Committee on Behavioral Health and Opioid Use disorders.  "Strips
come in, they're sold, they're bartered, they're cut into four
pieces and the inmate population is always looking for Suboxone.
It's the preferred drug."

In May, the Maryland Medicaid Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee
made recommendations for the Medicaid Preferred Drug List.

The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene removed Suboxone from
the preferred list and instead made comparable Zubsolv tablets
preferred on July 1, making Maryland the first state to do so.

The tablets are more difficult to smuggle into prison than the
film strips, which can easily be concealed.

If a drug is on the Medicaid Preferred Drug List, a person covered
by Medicaid can obtain that drug for a small co-pay.  If a drug is
denoted as nonpreferred, a person must get prior authorization for
the medication through a doctor or prescriber in order for it to
be covered or partially covered by Medicaid, according to the
Maryland Medicaid Pharmacy Program.

On Sept. 23, 35 states -- including Maryland -- and Washington
filed a class-action lawsuit against Indivior, the company that
produces Suboxone.  The states allege Indivior impeded the sale of
generic versions of Suboxone in tablet form until it forced other
generic alternatives out of the market, driving up the price of
the film strips, according to a Sept. 27 news release from
Indivior.

The release is the only comment the company has on the lawsuit or
on the Medicaid restrictions at this time, a representative from
Indivior said.

Between July 1 -- when the film strips were removed from the
Medicaid Preferred Drug List -- and Oct. 31, the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections has recovered 940 pieces of Suboxone
film strips, compared to 1,603 recovered from July 1 to Oct. 31,
2015.

"We've also had our teams monitor inmate calls, and they're
overhearing some frustration about not being able to obtain the
strips behind the walls as easily as it was prior to July 1,"
Mr. McLhinney said.

The disparity between the asking price of contraband Suboxone
strips also sharply increased since July 1.  The street price for
a film strip is only $5, while the price behind bars can be up to
$500, Mr. McLhinney said.

Typically, the film strips are cut into four pieces and sold
separately within prisons to increase an inmate's profit margin,
Mr. Kokolis said.

"We've done numerous cases where Suboxone has been smuggled in the
jail behind stamps or in envelopes or where the paper was colored
with Suboxone and then the inmate would get the paper and eat it,"
said Dan Alioto, commander of the vice/narcotics division at the
St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office.

Though the amount of the drug recovered in St. Mary's County has
declined slightly since July, Suboxone strips are still being
abused and traded for other drugs within jails and prisons, he
told the University of Maryland's Capital News Service.

"I think it has slowed down, but it's still an old trick, so it
takes a little while for the next thing to emerge," he said.

Local jails have become the "biggest detox facilities in the state
of Maryland," Mr. Kokolis said.

However, 85 percent of the prison and jail population who reported
using drugs prior to being sentenced also reported using heroin
within 24 hours of imprisonment, while they were incarcerated, he
said.

"All of the good that we try to do is very easily compromised by
the easy intake of Suboxone," he said.

Maryland officials also are working to collect more data on heroin
and opioid use statewide, said Glenn Fueston, executive director
of the Governor's Office on Crime Control and Prevention.

"We need to make sure that we're getting more access to that data
as a whole so we can make better decisions and better understand
the current threat that we have," he said.  "Understanding the
threat is a very important part of this problem."


INVENTURE FOODS: Initial Case Management Conference on Dec. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 24, 2016, that an initial case
management conference has been set for December 12, 2016, in the
case by Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund.

On April 4, 2016, a complaint captioned Westmoreland County
Employee Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure Foods Inc.
("Inventure" or "the Company") et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was
filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Additional defendants are the Company's Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, Capital Foods, LLC, and the
underwriters of  the secondary securities offering that closed
September 14, 2014 (the "September 2014 Offering").  The class
action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act and
focuses on the Company's frozen food facility in Jefferson,
Georgia.  Westmoreland seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief
deemed appropriate by the court.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On May 6, 2016,  the Company removed the purported class action
from Superior Court in Maricopa County to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona ("District Court").  On
May 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the purported
class action to the Maricopa County Superior Court.  On July 13,
2016, Inventure, along with the Company's Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, and Capital Foods, LLC, filed a
response in opposition to the motion to remand.  The September
2014 Offering underwriters joined in our opposition brief.  The
plaintiff filed its reply in support of the motion to remand on
June 23, 2016.  On July 5, 2016, the District Court ordered a stay
of proceedings until the Court had an opportunity to rule on the
motion to remand.

On August 11, 2016, the District Court granted Westmoreland's
motion to remand the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

On October 11, 2016, all of the defendants, including Inventure
and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, filed
a motion for complex case designation with the Maricopa County
Superior Court.  Westmoreland responded to this motion on October
26, 2016.  The Maricopa County Superior Court granted the motion.

On October 17, 2016, Westmoreland filed an amended complaint in
Maricopa County Superior Court.  Like the original complaint, the
amended complaint focuses on the Company's frozen food facility in
Jefferson, Georgia and alleges claims for purported Securities Act
violations against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of the September
2014 Offering.  Westmoreland also continues to seek certification
as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or
a rescissory measure of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  The Company and its
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer had until
November 14, 2016 to respond to the amended complaint.

An initial case management conference has been set for December
12, 2016.


ITEL NETWORKS: "Brown" Suit Seeks Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Itel Networks, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00797 (N.D. Ga., November 18, 2016), seeks overtime,
damages including mandatory treble and liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest and all other relief for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant is a Georgia corporation into internet and phone cable
installations in commercial buildings were Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as a cable technician.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      V. Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY
      1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 214-0120
      Fax: (404) 214-0125


JOHN HANCOCK: "Larson" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A) removed the purported
class action lawsuit entitled BARBARA LARSON, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Case No. RG-16813803, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
06678 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that John Hancock calculated certain
deductions or charges in a manner inconsistent with policy terms.
The Plaintiff's policy and those in the putative class provide for
an "Insurance Charge" (sometimes referred to as a "Cost of
Insurance Charge") that is calculated, in part, by using the
"Applied Monthly Rates," the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff
explains that the policies state that John Hancock will determine
the Applied Monthly Rates, that the Applied Monthly Rates will not
exceed the maximum rates disclosed in the policies, and that the
Applied Monthly Rates "will be based on our expectations of future
mortality experience."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan B. Vickery, Esq.
          John F. LaSalle, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: avickery@bsfllp.com
                  jlasalle@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Motty Shulman, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
          E-mail: srodriguez@bsfllp.com


KROENKE SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Macradee Aegerter, writing for Fox31, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Kroenke Sports and Entertainment
and the Pepsi Center on behalf of a deaf woman who said they are
not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Pepsi Center is home to the Nuggets, Avalanche and Mammoth,
and plays host to a wide variety of shows and concerts.  For most
the atmosphere inside the downtown Denver arena is electric in
both sight and sound.

But imagine watching a game or concert in silence.  You can see
what's in front of you but can't hear what's announced, or played
overhead.  For Kirstin Kurlander, that is life.

"I have zero hearing," Ms. Kurlander said.

The attorney lost her hearing at age 22 but not her zest for the
experiences of life.

"I don't hear the announcements that are happening, I don't hear
the entertainment portion.  I don't hear the score, talking about
the players.  So you're missing a lot of information," she said.

And its information she said she and others who are also deaf or
hard of hearing shouldn't have to miss.

"The law is really clear that they need to make it accessible to
deaf and hard of hearing patients," she said.

Under the American's with Disabilities act, Ms. Kurlander said the
Pepsi Center is required to provide captioning but is failing to
do so.

"We should have the same rights and be able to go and enjoy the
experience in the same way," she said.

Amy Robertson, an attorney with the Civil Rights Education and
Enforcement Center, said in 2013, the Pepsi Center installed one
of the world's largest JumboTrons but captioning on the big screen
is not there.

"Daktronics, which is the company that supplied the JumboTron,
advertises that its very, very simple to provide captioning on
their technology," Ms. Robertson said.

She points to examples from around the county like the University
of Oregon football stadium and Citi Field in New York, and she
said even Coors Field captions what is being broadcast in the
venue.

"We've been talking to them for over a year to try to find a
solution and we just don't seem to be able to come up with an
agreed approach," Ms. Robertson said of negotiations with Kroenke
Sports and Entertainment and the Pepsi Center.

Ms. Robertson said when negotiations failed to produce results,
she, on behalf of Ms. Kurlander, filed a class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court of Colorado.  They say what they are
asking for is simple.

"I don't think we are asking for a lot.  We just want to have
equal access," Ms. Kurlander said.

Kroenke Sports and Entertainment did not return calls seeking
comment.


LAWRY'S THE PRIME RIB: Faces Wage Class Action in Chicago
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
server at the Chicago version of a popular chain of upscale
steakhouses has brought a class action lawsuit against her
employer, saying the company owes money under federal and state
law to her and others who wait tables at the restaurant for
compelling them to study for written tests about the restaurant,
its menu and their duties while off the clock, without pay.

On Nov. 11, plaintiff Robin Rapai, of Villa Park, filed the
complaint in Chicago federal court against Lawry's The Prime Rib,
alleging the company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for refusing to pay her for the
time she spent at home studying to pass a written test she claimed
the restaurant would use to determine which servers received the
most hours or more choice assignments.

Ms. Rapai is represented in the action by attorneys James X.
Bormes and Catherine P. Sons, of Chicago.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Rapai said the restaurant ownership
and management have since 2013 required its servers to take a
written test every two weeks about the restaurant and its various
food and drink options.  However, she said the restaurant did not
allow its wait staff to study for the written test while at work.

Rather, the restaurant would provide the servers with the written
materials they needed to learn, requiring them to take the
materials home to study.  On average, the lawsuit alleged servers
would each dedicate two to three hours per testing period to study
the materials in preparation for the test.

The restaurant then would "purportedly assign work schedules based
in part on how . . . servers perform on the test," the lawsuit
said.  "While the amount of uncompensated time each employee
studied the written materials was frequently about two to three
hours every two weeks, the savings for Defendants (Lawry's) is
significant."

The lawsuit said this action has cost the servers unpaid wages, in
violation of laws requiring overtime and minimum wage pay.

"The net effect of Defendants' policies and practices, instituted
and approved by company managers, is that Defendants willfully
failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to Plaintiff
and others similarly situated, and willfully failed to keep
accurate time records to save payroll costs," the lawsuit said.
"Defendants thus enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of
their hourly employees."

The lawsuit did not indicate precisely how many employees might be
included as additional plaintiffs under the putative class action
lawsuit.  But the complaint asked the court to create a class
including anyone who worked for Lawry's in Illinois since Nov. 11,
2013, and who were required to study for the job duties test at
home, off the clock.  The plaintiffs said they expected the total
number of employees to exceed 40, allowing the lawsuit to proceed
as a collective action.

The complaint asked the court to award Ms. Rapai and the class
"all unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages they earned, plus
statutory penalties," and attorney fees.

The lawsuit arises in the wake of recent decisions in Chicago
federal court and elsewhere addressing the question of how much
additional compensation, if any, restaurant owners owe table
servers for duties that may go beyond the core duties of their
jobs.

For instance, recently the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
found a chain of Chicago area pancake houses don't need to pay
servers extra for requiring them to chop food, make coffee, dust
decorations and fixtures in the restaurant, and perform other
duties they said were in addition to their core job
responsibilities.  The judges in that case said the additional
duties were "related" closely enough to their jobs to allow the
restaurants to sidestep additional scrutiny under the law.

Those additional duties, however, were performed at the
restaurant, while on the clock, whereas in this case, plaintiffs
alleged the restaurant required them to work at home, off the
clock.

In addition to its Chicago site, Lawry's operates three other
restaurants under The Prime Rib brand, including in Las Vegas,
Dallas and Beverly Hills, Calif.


LENTUO INTERNATIONAL: March 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Nov. 14 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depositary
Shares of Lentuo International Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES OF
LENTUO INTERNATIONAL INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 15, 2014
THROUGH MARCH 9, 2015, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on March 6, 2017 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 1600
before the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District
Judge of the Central District of California, 312 North Spring
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the
purpose of determining:  (1) whether the proposed Settlement
consisting of the sum of $1,000,000 should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to $250,000.00, or twenty-five percent (25%)
of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of
no more than $50,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiffs not to
exceed $9,000, should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased Lentuo International Inc.'s American Depositary
Shares during the class period from May 15, 2014 through March 9,
2015, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of
this action.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing
to the Claims Administrator at: Lentuo International Inc.
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel.); 610-565-7985 (Fax);
info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Class, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than
January 9, 2017 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be
excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
so that it is received no later than February 4, 2017, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than February 14,
2017 by each of the following:

          Clerk of the Court
          United States District Court
          Central District of California, Western Division
          312 North Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012

          Laurence M. Rosen., Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Class Counsel

          Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA  94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5809
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel.:  213-785-2610
         Fax:  213-226-4684

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Jie for Violating Securities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDAN TAN WEI JIE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED, JOHN L.
HIGGINS, and MATTHEW KORENBERG, Case No. 3:16-cv-02832-GPC-MDD
(S.D. Cal., November 17, 2016), is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
the Defendants, who purchased the securities of Ligand between
November 9, 2015, and November 14, 2016, inclusive, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing
and acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies
discover and develop medicines worldwide.  The Company is
incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are
located in San Diego, California.

John L. Higgins has been the Chief Executive Officer at Ligand
since January 16, 2007, and has served as the President of Ligand
from January 16, 2007, until February 2, 2015.  Matthew Korenberg
has been the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
at Ligand since August 06, 2015, and has been its Principal
Accounting Officer since September 20, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUISIANA: Denied Tax Credits for Solar Power, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Louisiana illegally denied residents tax credits for installing
solar power systems at their homes, dozens of citizens claim in a
class action in East Baton Rouge Parish Court.

The case is Corby Acosta, Sr., et al., individually and on behalf
of the class, v. State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana
Department of Revenue and Kimberly L. Robinson, Secretary,
Louisiana Department of Revenue., No. 652825, 19th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Gaar, Jr., Esq.
     Jason M. Welborn, Esq.
     Lucas S. Colligan, Esq.
     Jacob H. Hargett, Esq.
     617 S. Buchanan Street
     Post Office Drawer
     Lafayette, LA 70502
     Tel: 337-233-3815


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Wins Final Approval of $23.5MM Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, November 21, gave final approval
to a $23.5 million shareholder class action against Magnachip
Semiconductor, for false and misleading statements that inflated
the price of its stock during a secondary offering.

The case is captioned, RICHARD HAYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.14-cv-
01160-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Under the settlement agreement, MagnaChip has agreed to pay
$23,500,000 into a Qualified Settlement Fund on the date on which
the settlement is finally approved.  Assuming the Settling
Defendants are 50% liable for Plaintiffs' total alleged damages of
$330 million dollars, the Settlement Amount represents 15% of
Plaintiffs' likely recovery at trial if they were to prevail.

The following amounts will be subtracted from the Settlement
Amount: (1) the costs of settlement and notice administration; (2)
Class Counsel's attorney's fees; (3) attorney's expenses; (4) a
payment to Lead Plaintiff Keith Thomas of $1,500.00; (5) other
unspecified fees and expenses authorized by the Court; and (6)
taxes and tax expenses.

After subtracting these amounts, any remaining funds will be
distributed to the class, which Thomas defines as follows:

     "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
Securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015,
including purchasers of MagnaChip common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with MagnaChip's February 6, 2013 follow-on public
stock offering. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants,
MagnaChip's officers and directors during the Settlement Class
Period, and all such excluded Persons' immediate families, legal
representatives, heirs, parents, wholly-owned subsidiaries,
successors, and assigns. Also excluded from the Settlement Class
are those Persons who file valid and timely requests for exclusion
in accordance with the Court's Order Preliminarily Approving
Partial Settlement and Providing for Notice."


MARION BASS: February 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Motley Rice LLC

William Tennison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.  MARION BASS SECURITIES
CORPORATION, et al. Defendants.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Cause No. 01-L-000457

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:  ALL OF THOSE PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO EVER PURCHASED, OWNED,
OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY OF THE REVENUE BONDS ISSUED BETWEEN
FEBRUARY 1, 1996 AND DECEMBER 11, 1998 BY STATE OR MUNICIPAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES FOR THE CITIES OF:  LAWRENCE,
INDIANA; PRINCETON, WISCONSIN; MANITOWOC, WISCONSIN; GILLETT,
WISCONSIN; WAUTOMA, WISCONSIN; RIVERVIEW, MICHIGAN; BANGOR,
MICHIGAN; AND REDFORD, MICHIGAN, WITH THE MALACHI CORP., INC., AS
OBLIGOR ("THE BONDS").

PLEASE READ THIS COURT-AUTHORIZED NOTICE CAREFULLY.  THIS IS NOT A
SOLICITATION.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed
Settlement of this class action "Litigation" between Plaintiff
William Tennison, individually and on behalf of the above
"Settlement Class," and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. relating
to the Bonds.  A "Final Hearing" will be held in the Circuit Court
of Madison County, Illinois (the "Court") to consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement.  Your
legal rights may be affected by this Notice and the proceedings in
the Litigation, whether or not you act.

Under the proposed Settlement, Wells Fargo will pay or distribute
a "WF Contribution" consisting of (1) a $6,500,000 cash payment,
and (2) $800,000 in "Previously Collected Funds" that Wells Fargo
received, in its capacity as indenture trustee, for the
Bondholders, net of its expenses and fees.  The WF Contribution
and the $525,000 paid in prior settlements by other defendants
("Additional Defendants' Contribution") will together comprise the
"Gross Settlement Fund."  At the Final Hearing, Class Counsel will
request the Court to approve payment of (a) a "Fee and Expense
Award" to Class Counsel not to exceed 25% of the Gross Settlement
Fund plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses up to
$785,000, which includes consulting fees of $40,000 to a potential
Settlement Class member for more than 15 years of services during
the Litigation, (b) "Incentive Awards" not to exceed $5,000 to
each of three present and former class representatives, and (c)
all "Settlement Costs" incurred since the Court's preliminary
approval of the Settlement.

If the Court grants final approval, and after payment of the Fee
and Expense Award, Incentive Awards, and all Settlement Costs, the
remaining "Net Settlement Fund" will be distributed to eligible
Class Members.  First, Wells Fargo will distribute the Previously
Collected Funds to Bondholders as of the date of final approval,
pursuant to a prior federal court order in a separate
"Receivership Action" involving the Bonds.  Second, the
"Settlement Administrator" will distribute the WF Contribution and
the Additional Defendants' Contribution pursuant to a
"Distribution Plan" proposed by Class Counsel and attached to the
Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval.

The Court will conduct a Final Hearing on February 21, 2017, at
1:30 p.m. to determine, among other things:  (1) whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed Settlement should be finally approved; and (3) whether
the Litigation and the claims of the Settlement Class against
Wells Fargo should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the
Settlement.

If you want to be excluded from the Settlement, you must sign and
mail a written "Opt Out Request" requesting your exclusion and
provide (1) your name, mail and email addresses, and telephone
number, and (2) the date(s), amounts, and types of Bonds you
purchased and the date(s), if any, that you sold any Bonds.  Your
exclusion request must be postmarked no later than January 31,
2017.  If you submit an Opt Out Request, you will not receive any
Settlement funds.

If you do not opt out, you can mail a signed, written "Objection"
to the Settlement terms, which must be postmarked no later than
January 31, 2017.  The Objection must include (1) your name, mail
and email addresses, and telephone number, (2) the date(s),
amounts, and types of Bonds you purchased and the date(s), if any,
that you sold any Bonds, and (3) the basis or reason for your
Objection, including any legal support or evidence (including
witnesses) that the Court should consider.

If you want to share in the potential Distribution to Class
Members, you must fill out, sign, and return the written Proof of
Claim Form available at
http://www.kellermanmunicipalbondsettlement.comto the Settlement
Administrator, postmarked no later than April 21, 2017.  If you do
not timely submit a Proof of Claim Form, you will not share in the
Distribution to Class Members, but will still be bound by the
Settlement terms, including the release of all claims against
Wells Fargo.

Note:  You cannot submit an Opt Out Request, a Proof of Claim
Form, or an Objection by telephone, facsimile or email.  Opt Out
Requests must be mailed to Class Counsel and Wells Fargo's
counsel.  Objections must be mailed to the Court, Class Counsel,
and Wells Fargo's counsel.  Proof of Claim Forms must be mailed to
the Settlement Administrator.  Contact information for each is
listed below.

COURT:
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Third Judicial Circuit
155 N. Main Str., Room 230
Edwardsville, IL 62025

WELLS FARGO'S COUNSEL:
David Wells
Michael J. Morris
Catherine A. Schroeder
Thompson Coburn, LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101

CLASS COUNSEL:

Fred Thompson, III
William S. Norton
Motley Rice LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

J. William Lucco
Christopher P. Threlkeld
Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld & Dawson, LLP
224 St. Louis Avenue, P.O. Box 539
Edwardsville, IL 62025

You are not required to attend the Final Hearing, but can do so in
person or through a lawyer you hire at your expense.  If you or
your lawyer wish to speak, you must, no later than February 10,
2017, mail a written notice of intent to appear to the Court,
Class Counsel, and counsel for Wells Fargo.  The notice must
include your name, address, and telephone number, and the number
of Bonds you purchased, owned, or otherwise acquired.

If you want more information regarding anything in this Notice,
you may consult http://www.kellermanmunicipalbondsettlement.com,
contact the Settlement Administrator at (866) 742-4955 or
info@rg2claims.com, or contact Class Counsel listed above.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR CLERK REGARDING THIS NOTICE, AS THEY
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

DATED: November 22, 2016
Pursuant to Order of the Court


MIRVAC: Waverley Park Estate Residents Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Christine McGinn, writing for Monash Leader, reports that angry
Waverley Park estate residents are set to take developer Mirvac to
court over controversial overhead powerlines.

The Waverley Park Residents Action Group is calling for owners of
the 1143 properties making up the estate to join a class action
after it was revealed Mirvac did not have to put the powerlines
underground.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne, in a letter to residents on
November 9, says the 2002 planning permit had been amended to
allow the powerlines to stay above ground -- in line with the 2015
independent panel's report recommendations.

MIRVAC SLAMMED OVER POWERLINE PROMISE

"Unfortunately, we have no grounds to force Mirvac to put the
powerlines underground," he states in the letter.

"Mirvac now has 90 days to submit an open space delivery plan and
one year to complete the public works.  Now that the consultation
process has concluded and Mirvac had responded, the permit has
been changed . . ."

Mr. Wynne hoped Mirvac's $30 million community benefits package
went "some way to meeting the needs of the local community".

Part of the package includes payments to residents starting at
$6500.

But some homeowners are already bowing out of legal action -- just
pleased the battle will end.

Hong Foo, who bought into the estate in 2007, said the package was
a great outcome and the community could finally "move on with
their lives".

Emanate Legal foundation partner Barry Taylor, who is acting for
the group, said originally Mirvac had "made representations to
purchasers of land that overhead power lines would be replaced
underground" to allow homeowners to enjoy the parklands and open
space.

"On the basis of these representations, purchasers were induced
into signing contracts to buy in the development," Mr. Taylor
said.

Mirvac group executive external affairs Marie Festa said the
package was fair and generous and homeowners were free take any
action they wanted.

"The offers made under the community benefits package represent
once-off, without prejudice offers and will not be reviewed,"
Ms. Festa said.

Residents who want to join in the legal fight can register their
interest to waverleypark@emanatelegal.com.au or take up Mirvac's
offer at waverleyparkcbp.com.au


MISSOURI STATE HIGH: Class Cert. Sought in Student-Athlete Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case SUZANNE VAWTER, as parent and next
friend of her minor daughter, AMV; KATHLEEN HAGEN, as parent and
next friend of her minor daughter, JLH; ANN and BRENT STEPP, as
parents and next friends of their minor daughter, APFS; and TODD
KOBAYASHI, as parent and next friend of his minor daughter, KK;
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-01041-SRB, (W.D.
Mo.) moves the Court for an order certifying the proceeding as a
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2).

Plaintiffs have brought this action challenging the Missouri State
High School Activities Association's (MSHSAA) policy and practice
of scheduling girls' softball season in the fall as discriminatory
and in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
20 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. and the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

As set forth in Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint,
the proposed class includes all present and future female student-
athletes and potential student-athletes who participate or seek to
participate in girls' softball, as well as those potential
student-athletes who are or were deterred from participating in
the sport of girls' softball at MSHSAA member high schools, for
which MSHSAA has designated fall as the playing and practice
season.

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at:
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zgZKYdCX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William C. Odle, Esq.
     Corby W. Jones, Esq.
     Keith A. Starr, Esq.
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
     2555 Grand Blvd.
     Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
     Telephone: 816.474.6550
     Facsimile: 816.421.5547
     E-mail: wodle@shb.com
             cwjones@shb.com
             kstarr@shb.com


MISTRAS GROUP: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen on Oct. 19, 2016, gave
preliminary approval to the $6 million settlement agreement in the
case, Viceral v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02198 (N.D.
Cal.).  A final hearing to consider approval of the settlement is
set for Feb. 2, 2017, 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San
Francisco.

Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that the Company is
currently a defendant in a consolidated purported class and
collective action, Edgar Viceral and David Kruger v Mistras Group,
et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. This matter results from the consolidation
of two cases originally filed in California state court in April
2015.

The consolidated case alleges violations of California statutes,
primarily the California Labor Code, and seeks to proceed as a
collective action under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
case is predicated on claims for allegedly missed rest and meal
periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages
due, as well as related unfair business practices, and is
requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, and
various fines and penalties available under California and Federal
law.

he parties have reached a settlement of the case, whereby the
Company agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the allegations and
avoid further distraction that would result if the litigation
continued. The settlement is subject to court approval, and a
hearing for preliminary approval was held on August 18, 2016.

The Company said it recorded a pre-tax charge of $6.3 million in
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 for the settlement and payment
of payroll taxes and other costs related to the settlement. The
settlement will cover claims dating back to April 2011 in some
cases and involves approximately 4,900 current and former
employees.

Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, noted that the nationwide and
California classes of employees comprise those who worked as
examiners and technicians at the infrastructure testing company
Mistras Group Inc. and claimed they weren't paid for training or
travel time.

Ms. Bayles said the judge approved the settlement in spite of his
concerns about high attorneys' fees and low payouts.


MOBILOIL FEDERAL CREDIT: Faces Overdraft Fees Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Mobiloil Federal Credit Union manipulates transactions to "fleece"
members of millions of dollars in overdraft fees, a class action
claims in Beaumont, Texas Federal Court.

The case is captioned, JILLIAN L. WHITTINGTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOBILOIL
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant., Case No. 16-cv-00482 (E.D Tex.)

Mobiloil Federal Credit Union is a financial institution with more
than 40,000 members and assets of $575 Million as of 2015. It
promotes itself as "Not for Profit, Not for Charity, but for
Service," and provides this purported Service "by the latest
technology."  The lawsuit alleges that Mobiloil Federal Credit
Union has used a corruption of such "latest technology" to fleece
thousands of loyal customers out of millions of dollars through
illicit Overdraft Fees.

The Complaint says MCU's overdraft policy and practices provides
it with substantially higher service fee revenues than it would
otherwise achieve, and consequently, inflicts substantial
financial damages on customers such as Plaintiff. For example, in
2015 alone, Plaintiff paid $1650 in Overdraft Fees. And in the
same year, MCU made more than $9 million income that, upon
information and belief, is comprised substantially of these
service fees.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
     Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
     Deola T. Ali, Esq.
     HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
     Galleria Tower I
     Houston, TX 77056
     Tel: (713) 554-2377
     Fax: (888) 995-3335
     E-Mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
             jarrett@hughesellzey.com
             deola@hughesellzey.com

          - and -

     Karen Spivey, Esq.
     PATE & SPIVEY, LLP
     First City Building
     505 Orleans, Suite 500
     Beaumont, Texas 77701
     Tel: (409) 838-6578
     Fax: (409) 838-692
     E-Mail: Karen@psallp.com


MONEY MAX: "Common Fund" Ruling Game Changer, Jones Day Says
------------------------------------------------------------
An upsurge in Australian class action filings is expected now that
the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has permitted a
common fund order in federal class action litigation.

In what may prove to be one of the most significant rulings in
Australian class action law, the Full Court in Money Max Int Pty
Ltd (Trustee) v QBE Insurance Group Limited [2016] FCAFC 148 has,
for the first time, made orders permitting a litigation funder to
be paid a court-determined percentage from any fund created as a
result of a successful class action settlement or judgment --
i.e., a common fund order.

Prior to this decision, litigation funders were compensated from
the proceeds (be it a settlement or judgment) obtained by the
subset of class members who had entered into a funding agreement
with them.  Now, all members of the class are likely to have to,
in effect, contribute to the payment of a litigation funder's fee
(whether or not they entered into a funding agreement with the
funder).

Other ramifications of this decision are expected to include: a
trend to larger class actions -- because a common fund arrangement
provides strong economic incentives for funders to run "open
class" rather than "closed class" class actions; and a race to the
courthouse to file first among the promoters of class actions --
because funders who can obtain a common fund order will be able to
cause a class action to be filed without having to first build a
book of class members who will enter a funding agreement.  As
such, the prospect is that funders will be keen to try to capture
the ground for the class action by seeking to file ahead of rival
class action promoters.  A related concern is whether the race to
the registry will see more, poorly considered, and poorly
investigated class actions being filed. That prospect seems highly
likely.

Background

The Australian class action regime in Part IVA of the Federal
Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("FCA Act") was introduced
without any additional funding mechanism. Contingency fees were,
and are, illegal.  Lawyers could charge a conditional fee (also
called a no-win, no-fee) where the client had to pay only if the
claim were successful, but the lawyer received only his or her
normal fee, in some cases with an uplift capped at 25 percent of
that normal fee.  However, this did not address the usual costs
rule in Australian litigation where a losing party is liable for
the other side's costs.  The rule is modified in relation to class
actions as the costs rule applies to the representative party only
and not to the class members.  Nonetheless, this approach to costs
has been raised as a disincentive to the commencement of
litigation as the plaintiff, or representative party in a class
action, is liable for the costs of their opponent if they are
unsuccessful.

The response to the possibility of an adverse costs order pursuant
to the Australian costs rule, and the lack of law firms being able
to run lengthy, complex class actions on a conditional fee basis,
was third-party litigation funding.  However, funding was
dependent on a contractual relationship being established.
Litigation funders then became concerned about free-riding, where
the opt-out class model adopted in Australia meant that unfunded
class members could be part of a class action but not have to pay
any fee to the funder. The funders addressed this through a
"closed class" method of group definition.  The closed class is
brought only on behalf of those class members who entered into a
funding agreement so that there were no unfunded class members.

However, competition between funders and a respondent's desire for
finality saw, in some circumstances, the continued use of the
traditional opt-out class action model, now called an "open
class", or the opening of a closed class as part of a settlement
to allow for unfunded class members to be included.  To address
the existence of the so-called free riders, a practice developed
of seeking "equalisation orders" whereby unfunded class members
were ordered by the court to give up a proportion of their
recovery equal to what funded class members had agreed to pay to
the funder.  In most cases, the amount given up by the unfunded
class members was then distributed across all class members, but
in some instances it was paid to the litigation funder.

The academic literature recognised that while the opt-out class
action and litigation funding both have the ability to promote
access to justice, they were at odds with each other, leading to
the closed class and, in some situations, multiple class actions.
To try to address this problem, attention focussed on the US class
action practice of employing a common fund approach to the payment
of lawyer's fees and sought to adapt it to litigation funding.
The idea, with some modifications, was picked up by funders and
practitioners and, ultimately, the Full Court of the Federal Court
of Australia.

Facts

Money Max Int Pty Ltd brought a shareholder class action against
the respondent, QBE Insurance Group Ltd ("QBE"), pursuant to Part
IVA of the FCA Act.  The applicant alleged that QBE engaged in
misleading or deceptive conduct and breached its continuous
disclosure obligations.

The class action was funded by a litigation funder, International
Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd ("Funder").  The applicant
commenced the class action on its own behalf and on behalf of an
"open class" comprising all persons who acquired an interest in
QBE shares in the defined period and who claimed to have suffered
loss as a result of QBE's conduct.  The Funder and approximately
1,290 class members entered into a litigation funding agreement
which provided that:

The Funder agreed to meet the class members' legal costs, any
adverse costs order and any security for costs.

The class members agreed to reimburse the Funder the legal costs
paid and to pay the Funder a percentage commission of either 32.5
percent or 35 percent (depending upon how many QBE shares they
acquired in the defined period) from any settlement or judgment
monies they received.

No funding agreement existed in relation to other class members.

The applicant sought orders pursuant to ss 23 and 33ZF of the FCA
Act to require the applicant and all class members to pay the
Funder a pro rata share of the legal costs incurred and a funding
commission at the (reduced) rate of 30 percent from the common
fund of any settlement or judgment in their favour.  The effect of
the order would be to apply litigation funding terms to all class
members (not just the funded class members) without class members
needing to enter into a contractual relationship with the Funder.

The Full Court's Proposed Orders

The Full Court determined that it would make orders similar to,
but not precisely the same as, those sought by the Applicant.  The
Full Court stated that once the Funder, the Applicant and the
Applicant's solicitor gave an undertaking to each other and to the
Court that they would comply with the funding terms set out in
annexure A to the judgment, the Court would order that prior to
any distribution to class members, the following amounts be
deducted from any settlement or judgment and paid to the Funder:
(i) the legal costs paid by the Funder to the lawyers; and (ii) a
percentage of any settlement or judgment to be determined by the
Court.

However, no amount payable pursuant to the order could be greater
than would be payable if the order was not made, i.e., the terms
of the funding agreement applied.

A number of matters are apparent:

   -- The operation of the common fund is at the election of the
Funder -- the Funder can elect to retain the contractual
arrangements with the funded class members.

   -- The Court will determine the amount of the Funder's
commission at the conclusion of the proceedings once a settlement
or judgment has occurred.

   -- All class members will bear the legal costs and the Funder's
commission equally.
   -- No class member can be worse off under the orders than if
the orders were not made.

More Class Actions?

The availability of common fund orders may make it easier for a
litigation funder to satisfy themselves that the quantum of claims
is sufficient to make funding a worthwhile proposition without
needing to wait until they have signed up the requisite number of
class members.  The common fund also reduces the cost of
identifying and signing up class members.  As a result, class
actions that may not have been commenced because the "book build"
process failed to attract sufficient signatures may now go ahead.
That said, the common fund does not change a class action's
prospects of success in relation to the substantive claims, and
the Australian costs rules mean that the class representative
(usually indemnified by the funder) will be required to pay an
opponent's costs if the class action is unsuccessful.

Larger Class Actions?

It is generally the case that an opt-out class action will be
larger than an opt-in class action, at least initially.  This also
holds for the Australian variant on the opt-in class, the closed
class.  This is because the opt-out class action includes everyone
who meets the class definition without them needing to do
anything.  At an early stage, they will be given an opportunity to
exclude themselves by taking the positive step of returning a
form.  A closed class is typically smaller because the lawyer or
funder has to sign up each class member, which takes time, money
and an ability to actually identify the class member.

As the common fund does not require a funder to have signed up a
class member to get paid, it should encourage the use of an open
class action.  As a result, the funded open class action is likely
to include more class members than the funded closed class action,
and it is likely to be used more often, subject to the comments
below about competing class actions.

However, when class actions conclude, there is a need to be able
to distribute any compensation achieved.  For a closed class, that
is relatively straightforward since class members are known. For
an open class action, there will need to be a class closure
process whereby the class members register, meaning they provide
contact details, bank account information and claim information.
The closure of the class is needed regardless of whether a common
fund order is to be made.  The effect of class closure is usually
that those class members who do not register do not recover any
compensation, but they have their claim extinguished.[2] The size
of the class action crystallises at this point and usually
reduces.

Whether an open class after it has been closed will still be
larger than a closed class will vary across class actions
depending on a range of factors.  However, in relation to
shareholder class actions that were closed classes but then
opened, the result was usually more class members participated and
an increase in quantum.  The number of class members can increase
substantially, but the quantum increases to a far lesser degree
because the closed class usually targets institutional investors
with large shareholdings.  The additional class members who
registered were usually retail investors with small shareholdings.

More or Less Competing Class Actions?

The Full Court expressed the view that "by encouraging open class
proceedings, a common fund approach may reduce the prospect of
overlapping or competing class actions and reduce the multiplicity
of actions that sometimes occurs with class actions".

However, competing class actions are still possible, indeed highly
likely, due to the increasing numbers of funders and plaintiffs'
lawyers seeking to operate in the Australian class actions market.

This is because the common fund is but one of a number of ways to
finance a class action.  Class actions can be structured as open
or closed classes.  Financing can come from a litigation funder or
from a lawyer acting on a conditional fee basis and with an After-
the-Event insurance policy to cover any adverse costs order.
Further, the terms of the financing will vary, the most obvious
being the percentage of the funder's commission or the rates
charged by the lawyer, including the amount of any uplift (capped
at 25 percent by legislation).  The common fund adds another item
to the financing menu.

Some funders will not want to place their recovery in the hands of
the court through the common fund and prefer to rely on the terms
of their funding contracts.  The Full Court acknowledged as much.
Of course, a court probably has the power to review a funder's fee
regardless of a common fund order being made.  The common fund
order makes it easier by having the funder agree upfront.
Established funders with connections to institutional investors
may feel they can contract with a sufficiently large number of
claimants to make undertaking the risk for the potential return
worthwhile.  If they have to open the class, then they can seek
equalisation orders.

Class members, especially institutional investors, may have a
preference for a particular funder because they can negotiate
lower fees.  The funding agreement used in Money Max gave large
shareholders a 2.5 percent discount compared to small
shareholders.  The funder's reputation or solvency or other
nonfinancial terms in the funding agreement may play a part.

There is no common fund order available for lawyers, and so they
may find it more lucrative to bear the risk of receiving no
payment in return for being able to charge their standard hourly
fees and obtain a 25 percent uplift to those fees if successful.
This approach is rare in the shareholder class action space at
present but was used in the Bushfire class actions, where the
lawyers in the Kilmore East class action recovered $37 million.

The Full Court's view above follows from a single open class
action being able to include and resolve all class members'
claims.  Other class actions or proceedings are not needed.  If
multiple open class actions are commenced, then there is a clear
abuse of process as class members will be suing a respondent
multiple times for the same alleged harm. The court can choose
between the class actions using its traditional tools of stay,
joinder and consolidation.  Matters become more complicated when
the class members do not overlap, such as when there are two
closed classes or an open and a closed class but the open class
excludes the class members in the closed class.  There is no abuse
of process, but there are additional costs for the court, the
parties and the class members compared to if there were a single
open class action.

The court needs to be prepared to draw on its case management
powers to choose a single vehicle to resolve the claims.  To date
the courts have been reluctant to do so, especially when the class
actions have different financing models and/or vary in terms of
allegations made or claim period.  The common fund does not remove
the need for the courts to make some difficult decisions in
relation to competing class actions.  However, as it may foster a
race to the courthouse, it may then force the court into making
those difficult decisions.

A Race to the Courthouse?

The common fund order removes the need for a funder to first
contract with sufficient class members to be able to launch a
class action with sufficient quantum of claims to make funding a
worthwhile proposition.  Given the increasing numbers of new
funder entrants in the Australian class actions market, the common
fund presents an opportunity for those new entrants to commence
class actions quickly and stake out the ground in the hope of
being the funder for all class members.

The courts have previously stated that the first class action to
be filed does not automatically become the one that will proceed.
However, it does present a funder with some advantages, such as
the associated publicity which can assist in attracting class
members (even though a litigation funding contract is not strictly
necessary if a common fund order is made), and as a way of
discouraging other competing classes who will recognise that the
process will be longer and more complicated than originally
envisaged.  Nonetheless, there are a number of large, well-
established funders operating in Australia who are unlikely to
give up a lucrative class action because another class action has
already been filed.

The result will be more competing class actions that will need to
be sorted out by the courts.  However, it may also result in
large-scale opt outs, where a funder has contracted with
institutional investors and another procedural approach is
available, such as regular litigation with all investors joined as
claimants.

Lower Funder's Fees?

The Full Court stated that it expected "the courts will approve
funding commission rates that avoid excessive or disproportionate
charges to class members but which recognise the important role of
litigation funding in providing access to justice, are
commercially realistic and properly reflect the costs and risks
taken by the funder, and which avoid hindsight bias".  The way in
which the courts approach the setting of the funder's commission,
and the actual fees approved, will be crucial to how the common
fund is employed going forward.  It remains to be seen whether the
fees will be reduced.


MUDTECH SERVICES: "Gallow" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN GALLOW, individually and on behalf of all class members v.
MUDTECH SERVICES, L.P., Case No. GD-16-022247 (Pa. Comm. Pleas,
Allegheny Cty., November 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

MudTech Services, L.P., is a Texas limited partnership doing
business throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania
and Ohio.  MudTech is a global oilfield services company with
significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: Pfeuti Suit Dismissed Following Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando issued an order
granting the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement in the case
captioned HERMANN PFEUTI and ALFRED ERZAK, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. NAPLES TRANSPORATION
& TOURS, LLC, RANDALL R. SMITH and TAMIR RANKOW, Defendants, Case
No: 2:16-cv-364-FtM-CM, (M.D. Fla.).

The Settlement and Release Agreement between Plaintiffs and Opt-In
Plaintiffs and the Naples Transportation & Tour LLC is approved by
the Court as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act, wrote Judge Mirando in
her November 16 Order, a copy of which is available at no charge
at:

      http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y7GY41tN

The Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Randall R. Smith and
Tamir Rankow are dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants for alleged
violations of the FLSA's provisions on minimum wages, overtime
wages, and retaliation. Two Opt-In Plaintiffs, Rosie Mills and
Kevin Bough, have filed consents to join this collective action.

According to Judge Mirando, Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally
Certify FLSA Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential
Class Members and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is denied as
moot; Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA
Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is also denied as moot; and the
action is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk will close the
file.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Division I student-athlete at Northwestern University (NU) filed
an antitrust lawsuit against the university and the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), claiming that the NCAA's
transfer regulations violate federal antitrust laws, following
intimidation tactics from NU in an attempt to force the plaintiff
to transfer schools, according to Hagens Berman.

The plaintiff, John "Johnnie" Vassar, was a men's basketball
player who joined Northwestern during the 2014-2015 academic year,
and the complaint states that the transfer rules established by
the NCAA and carried out by Northwestern "restrict the freedom of
student athletes in violation of antitrust law." After accepting
an athletic scholarship to Northwestern, Johnnie was subjected to
a variety of efforts from the university to transfer and to take
away his athletic scholarship, including verbal harassment,
falsified records of misconduct and more.

"In a competitive market free of the NCAA and its members
restraint, these athletes would be allowed to transfer without
restriction, particularly where, as in this case, their current
coach no longer wants their services and 'runs them off,'" the
complaint states.

The suit filed Nov. 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division seeks to change
the NCAA's current rules preventing Division I basketball players
from transferring to other NCAA Division I schools and playing
immediately without losing athletic eligibility for a year.

"We see this destructive double-standard again and again --
non-student-athletes are free to transfer and are eligible for a
new scholarship without waiting a year.  Coaches often transfer to
the tune of a hefty pay raise," said Steve Berman, managing
partner of Hagens Berman and lead attorney representing the class
of athletes.  "But meanwhile, student-athletes are penalized and
forced to sit out a year before they can play elsewhere.  The NCAA
needs to level the playing field for these thousands of kids who
face undue punishment under its senseless bylaws."

Johnnie dreamed of playing professional basketball after
graduation.  He was heavily recruited by colleges out of high
school and offered athletic scholarships by numerous NCAA Division
I men's basketball schools.

In 2014, Johnnie joined Northwestern on a full multi-year
basketball grant-in-aid that guaranteed him a scholarship during
the entire period of his eligibility, but in 2015, Northwestern
told him he would no longer have a spot on the basketball team.
The lawsuit alleges that Northwestern engaged in deceitful
behavior over the course of a year in order to secure Johnnie's
athletic scholarship so the school could provide it to another
player, given the Northwestern-agreed and NCAA-imposed
13-scholarship limit.

By 2016, he was informed that his basketball grant-in-aid would be
converted to an academic scholarship in order to release him as a
"counter" and by May 5, 2016, Northwestern University freed up the
guaranteed multi-year athletic scholarship that it had initially
provided him as the sweetener to get him to join the school's
academic and basketball programs, according to the complaint.

"Shady, dirty, and underhanded" Behavior

The suit states that NU staff berated the nationally recruited
basketball player and put Johnnie in an "internship" under which
he worked as a janitor instead of permitting him to train and play
with his teammates.  The school also pressured him to sign a blank
"Roster Deletion" form by which he would be "voluntarily
withdrawing" from the team, the suit states, even though Johnnie
did not want to leave Northwestern.

The complaint also alleges that unknown individuals within
Northwestern falsified timecards in an attempt to create
misconduct as grounds for taking away Johnnie's athletic
scholarship (going so far as to even misspell his name on one such
timecard), and even asked about his willingness to accept a cash
payment to "go away," among other things.

Amid Northwestern's tactics, Johnnie reached out to multiple
Division I basketball programs and received uniform responses:
they would bring Johnnie onto their program if he could play right
away, according to the lawsuit.  Because Johnnie could not play
right away due to the anticompetitive rules, the schools would not
accept him.

"This case is a prime example of the catch-22 that student-
athletes are forced into," Mr. Berman said.  "And while NCAA-
member universities play fast and loose with the readily available
athletic talent they recruit, there are real futures on the line,
and real student-athletes are suffering because of these systemic,
overbearing regulations that take away their options."

The suit states that Johnnie no longer has an athletic scholarship
and no longer plays Division I basketball.  Instead of pursuing
his dream of playing professional basketball after graduation, he
is forced to train on his own in an effort to keep up his skills
honed through years of competitive basketball.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Finds Standing in Data Breach Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh De, Esq. -- rde@mayerbrown.com -- Stephen Lilley, Esq. --
slilley@mayerbrown.com -- and Joshua Silverstein, Esq. --
jsilverstein@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, in an article for
International Law office, reports that on September 12 2016 -- in
Galaria v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co (15-3386/15-3387)(1) --
the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the
plaintiffs in two related lawsuits properly alleged standing to
pursue claims that had arisen from a 2012 attack on the defendant
insurer's computer network.

The court's unpublished opinion addressed two questions that are
frequently litigated in data breach cases:

   -- whether the plaintiffs had alleged an injury-in-fact
required for constitutional standing; and

   -- whether any such alleged injury was fairly traceable to the
acts of the defendant and thus sufficient to establish the
requisite causation.

The court decided both questions in favour of the plaintiffs.  It
did so over a dissent that concluded that it was unnecessary for
the panel to weigh in on the "existing circuit split regarding
whether an increased risk of identity theft is an Article III
injury" because the plaintiffs had alleged no facts indicating
that the company was responsible for the acts of third-party
criminal hackers.

Background

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a cyberattack on the insurer's
computer network, in which criminal hackers allegedly accessed the
plaintiffs' personal information.  The company responded to the
incident by offering "a year of free credit monitoring and
identity-fraud protection of up to $1 million through a third-
party vendor".  The insurer also advised customers to set up fraud
alerts and place security freezes on their credit reports, while
noting that these steps could impede access to credit and/or cost
a small fee.  The plaintiffs alleged that they had taken these
steps and thus had "expend[ed] time and money" as a result of the
data breach.

Both plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints alleging
negligence and other claims.  The Southern District of Ohio
dismissed the claims, concluding, among other things, that the
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing.  In reaching this
decision, the district court relied on Supreme Court decisions
such as Clapper v Amnesty International USA,(2) holding that a
plaintiff lacks standing when he or she merely alleges a risk of
future harm that is not certainly impending. The district court
also recognised that other courts, including the Third Circuit,
have previously held that alleged "time and money expenditures" to
mitigate the risk of speculative future injuries are inadequate to
establish standing.(3)

Decision

However, the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision.  The majority
held that the "[p]laintiffs' allegations of a substantial risk of
harm, coupled with reasonably incurred mitigation costs, [were]
sufficient to establish a cognizable Article III injury at the
pleading stage".  It said that, because the plaintiffs' data had
already been stolen, there was "no need for speculation" that they
faced a substantial risk and were thus justified in taking action
to mitigate it.  The defendant's letter to the plaintiffs and its
decision to offer free credit monitoring services were cited as
indicative of the "severity of the risk".  The court concluded
that "[w]here a data breach targets personal information, a
reasonable inference can be drawn that the hackers will use the
victims' data for the fraudulent purposes alleged in Plaintiffs'
complaints".  The court noted that "[a]lthough [Defendant] offered
to provide some [risk mitigation] services for a limited time,
Plaintiffs allege that the risk is continuing, and that they have
also incurred costs to obtain protections -- namely, credit
freezes -- that [Defendant] recommended but did not cover".

The court thus viewed the case not as one in which the plaintiffs
sought to "manufacture standing" through incurring unreasonable
mitigation costs, but rather as one in which the costs were "a
concrete injury suffered to mitigate an imminent harm".

The panel described this analysis of constitutional injury as
consistent with that of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in Lewert v
PF Chang's China Bistro Inc;(4) Remijas v Neiman Marcus Group
LLC;(5) and Krottner v Starbucks Corp.(6) The panel acknowledged
that the "Third Circuit reached a different conclusion in Reilly v
Ceridian Corp", but found it distinct because in that case the
plaintiffs had not alleged "the intentional theft of their data".

The panel went on to hold that the plaintiffs had adequately pled
the other two elements of Article III standing: causation and
redressability.  The court's decision was not recommended for
publication, meaning that it will not bind future Sixth Circuit
panels.

Judge Alice Batchelder dissented from the majority's finding that
the plaintiffs had adequately pled a causal connection between the
insurer's alleged conduct and their alleged injury.  The dissent
noted that the "plaintiffs make no factual allegations regarding
how the hackers were able to breach [the company]'s system, nor do
they indicate what [it] might have done to prevent that breach but
failed to do".  The dissent also concluded that the plaintiffs did
not allege causation sufficient to satisfy the second element of
Article III standing because "[i]n short, there is no allegation
of fact in either complaint that makes plausible the notion that
[Defendant] is at all responsible for the criminal acts that
increased the plaintiffs' risk of identity theft".  In other
words, the alleged injury was a direct result of the criminal
actions of a third party and not of the defendant insurer.
Because the dissent found the causation element of standing not
satisfied, it did not comment on "whether an increased risk of
identity theft is an Article III injury", but concluded instead
that it was not necessary for the court to "take sides in the
existing circuit split" on that question.

Comment

As the Galaria dissent emphasises, judicial consensus remains
elusive as courts analyse standing in data breach litigation.
While the impact of this unpublished opinion remains to be seen,
this decision confirms that litigation over Article III standing
in data breach cases is likely to continue as judges evaluate how
the concepts of injury-in-fact and causation apply in the wake of
criminal attacks on company networks and systems.


NBTY INC: Sweat Files Third Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case JENNIFER SWEAT, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBTY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-00940-MMH-PDB), ((M.D. Fla.), has
filed a third motion for class certification and for leave to
supplement after discovery.

The Plaintiff files this Third Motion and Memorandum for class
certification after meeting and conferring with Defendant in
accordance with the Local Rules. Defendant opposes this motion.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of:

     "All persons residing in states which have enacted the
     Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, The Florida Deceptive
     and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or any act similar in
     substance, who, within the applicable limitations period,
     have purchased dietary supplements manufactured and marketed
     by defendant and labeled "Made in the USA," featured an
     American Flag, or otherwise labeled or marketed with an
     unqualified representation of domestic sourcing."

Alternatively, if the Court does not certify the class, the
Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Florida-only class:

     "All persons residing in Florida who, within the applicable
     limitations period, have purchased dietary supplements
     manufactured and marketed by Defendant and labeled "Made
     in the USA," featured an American Flag, or otherwise
     labeled or marketed with an unqualified representation of
     domestic sourcing."

The Plaintiff files this motion at the outset of the litigation
pursuant to Local Rule 4.04, which requires a class certification
motion to be filed "within ninety (90) days following the filing
of the initial complaint."  Plaintiff additionally files this
motion to prevent Defendant from attempting any so-called "pick-
off" to moot her representative claims (i.e., attempting to
terminate her standing to assert class claims by tendering to her
the full amount of her individual claims).

The revised complaint noted that some district courts in the
Eleventh Circuit have opined that an offer of settlement can moot
a putative class representative's claims in the event that the
class representative has not moved for class certification as of
the time the settlement offer is made.

The Supreme Court has addressed the issue ruling that pre-
certification offers do not moot the case or controversy in
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), however, based
on the views taken by some courts in the Eleventh Circuit, The
Plaintiff files this motion in an abundance of caution in order to
safeguard the interests of the putative class.

This case is appropriate for class certification, Plaintiff tells
the Court.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the
proposed Class or Classes, asks the Court to issue an order that
(1) the Court will hold its ruling on class certification until
after discovery is held on class issues; (2) allows discovery to
take place on the relevant issues; (3) grants Plaintiff leave to
file a supplemental motion or brief at the conclusion of such
discovery; and (4) finally grants class certification after full
briefing of the issues.

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definitions of the Class
or Classes, as appropriate, at the conclusion of discovery on the
class issues.

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1hX1js4s

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     D. Frank Davis, Esq.
     John E. Norris, Esq.
     Kristan B. Rivers, Esq.
     DAVIS & NORRIS LLP
     2154 Highland Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: 205-930-9900
     Email: fdavis@davisnorris.com
            jnorris@davisnorris.com
            krivers@davisnorris.com

Attorneys for Defendant NBTY, Inc.:

     James F. Speyer, Esq.
     E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
     Arnold & Porter LLP
     777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4400
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
     Phone: (213) 243-4059
     Fax: (213) 243-4199
     E-mail: james.speyer@aporter.com
             alex.beroukhim@aporter.com

       - and -


     Dana G. Bradford II, Esq.
     James H. Cummings, Esq.
     Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
     50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Telephone: (904) 598-6103
     Facsimile: (904) 598-6203
     E-mail: dbradford@sgrlaw.com
             jcummings@sgrlaw.com


NEW BOSTON PIE: "Brayak" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Badr Brayak, Ahmed Gharrari, Hamid Kaci, Adil Abdeljalil, Khalid
Akouhar, Mohamed Essafi, Taoufik Bouchrit, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. New Boston Pie,
Inc. and Charbel Rizkallah, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00797 (D.
Mass., November 18, 2016), seeks overtime, damages including
mandatory treble and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and interest and all other relief under Massachusetts General Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Boston Pie, Inc. is a Domino's franchisee and operates in East
Boston, Massachusetts where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers.
Plaintiffs were paid a tipped minimum wage (of $4.00-$4.50 per
hour) that was below the regular minimum wage. Plaintiffs relied
heavily on ti0070 income to earn wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Churchill, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel: (617) 607-6230
      Email: stephen@fairworklaw.com
             brant@fairworklaw.com


NORTHERN TRUST: January 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LOUISIANA FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC POLICE &
FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF
PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NORTHERN TRUST INVESTMENTS, N.A., and THE NORTHERN
TRUST COMPANY, Defendants.

Case No. 09-7203
Hon. Jorge L. Alonso

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CERTIFICATION OF CLASS AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND (III)
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All entities that are not governed by ERISA (notwithstanding
any incorporation of an ERISA standard of care or other ERISA
standards into any such entity's applicable contracts with
Northern Trust) and that directly invested or maintained
investments or assets during the period beginning September 14,
2008 through and including December 31, 2010 (the "Class Period")
in any of the Core Collateral Section, Core USA Collateral
Section, Global Core Collateral Section, and/or European Core
Collateral Section, also referred to as Core, Core USA, Global
Core, and European Core, respectively, along with any associated
term loans or non cash collateral (the "Core Pools") (the
"Class").1

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

This is to notify you that the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") has
preliminarily approved a proposed Settlement of the remaining
claims asserted in above-captioned class action lawsuit (the
"Action").2  Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to
pay $4,250,000 in cash into escrow in resolution of the "Direct
Lending" claims (as defined below) asserted on behalf of the Class
in the Action.3  The cash settlement amount, plus interest
thereon, less administrative fees, costs and attorneys' fees
approved by the Court, will be distributed to Class Members
according to a Plan of Allocation proposed by Co-Lead Counsel or
such other plan of allocation as may be approved by the Court.
Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny all
assertions of wrongdoing or liability against them in the Action
and have agreed to enter into the Settlement solely to avoid the
uncertainty, burden and expense of protracted litigation of the
claims asserted on behalf of the Class.

"Direct Lending" as used herein and for purposes of
the proposed Settlement means any investor's participation in
Northern Trust's securities lending program pursuant to an
agreement to lend that investor's own securities, pursuant to
which that investor's collateral from securities lending was
invested in any Northern Trust collateral reinvestment vehicle.
The universe of Direct Lending investors who are members of the
Class is limited to those who invested in any of the Core Pools.
Please note: Investment in a Commingled Lending Fund is not and
does not constitute "Direct Lending" and, for purposes of the
Settlement, securities lending and collateral reinvestment by a
Commingled Lending Fund does not constitute Direct Lending.

A hearing will be held on January 11, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
before The Honorable Jorge L. Alonso, at the Everett McKinley
Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Courtroom 1219, Chicago, IL 60604, to determine (a) whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (b) whether the Direct Lending claims should be
dismissed with prejudice; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses, which will be filed with
the Court on or before December 7, 2016 and available for review
by Class Members, should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be
affected by the certification of the Class and the proposed
Settlement.  Defendants have identified from their records the
entities they believe to be members of the Class and a more
detailed notice of the pendency of the class action and proposed
settlement (the "Settlement Notice") was mailed directly to
each such entity on November 7, 2016.  The Settlement Notice
sets forth the rights of Class Members and important deadlines
and is available on the website maintained by the Settlement
Administrator, www.NorthernTrustClassAction.com. PLEASE
READ IT CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Entities which received the Settlement Notice by direct mail
do not need to do anything to be eligible to receive a
distribution from the Settlement proceeds if the Settlement is
approved by the Court.  Defendants have provided the Settlement
Administrator with each identified Class Member's relevant
investment information for the purpose of calculating their
pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund under the plan of
allocation that is approved by the Court.  If an identified Class
Member directed Defendants not to provide this information to the
Settlement Administrator and Co-Lead Counsel, such entity has
forfeited all right to any distribution from the Settlement
proceeds.

If you did not receive a copy of the Settlement Notice
by direct mail and you believe that you are a member of the
Class, you have the right to challenge your omission from the
Class ("Status Challenge").  To be a Class Member, you must have
directly invested or maintained investments or assets in one or
more of the Core Pools during the Class Period.  In order to be
eligible to establish your status as a Class Member, you must
submit your challenge to the Settlement Administrator in writing
postmarked no later than December 23, 2016 at the following
address: Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System, et al. v.
Northern Trust Investments, N.A. et al., c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9349,
Dublin, OH 43017-4249.  The challenge must set forth a detailed
statement of the basis for your belief that you are a Class Member
and must include documentation in support of your position.

Status Challenges will be reviewed and the challenger will be
advised of the conclusion reached.  If the conclusion is disputed,
the challenger will have the right to request a Court review of
the determination.

As described more fully in the Settlement Notice, Class
Members have the right to request exclusion from the Class,
but any such request must comply with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice and must be received no later than
December 21, 2016.  Any Class Member properly requesting to
be excluded from the Class will not be bound by any judgment or
orders entered by the Court with respect to the Direct Lending
claims and will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan
of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than December 21, 2016, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice which has
been posted on the websites noted above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE
CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All inquiries concerning this notice should be directed to the
Settlement Administrator at Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement
System, et al. v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A. et al., c/o
GCG, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249, or to the following Co-
Lead Counsel:

          Avi Josefson
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60611
          (312) 373-3880

By Order of the Court

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in Par. 10 of the full printed Settlement
Notice
described herein.

2 This notice is only a summary; the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement of Class Action dated July 25, 2016 (the
"Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
www.NorthernTrustClassAction.com,
controls the terms of the Settlement.

3 An initial, partial settlement of this Action that resolved all
"Indirect Lending" claims asserted against the Defendants in the
Action was approved by the Court on August 5, 2015.


NORTHSTAR FINANCE: "Boothe" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Boothe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Northstar Realty Finance Corp., David T.
Hamamoto, Judith A. Hannaway, Wesley D. Minami And Louis J.
Paglia, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03742 (D. Md., November 18,
2016), seeks damages, costs and disbursements of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses and
such other and further equitable relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger
between NRF, Colony Capital Inc. and NorthStar Asset Management
Group Inc.

The merged company will be renamed Colony Northstar, Inc.
Northstar Realty Finance Corp. common stockholders will receive
1.0996 shares of Colony Northstar's common stock for each share of
NRF common stock they own. NorthStar Asset Management Group
stockholders will continue to own one share of Colony Northstar
common stock for each share they previously owned. Colony common
stockholders will receive 1.4663 shares of Colony Northstar's
common stock for each share of Colony common stock they own. Upon
completion, Northstar Realty Finance stockholders will own 33.90%
of the combined company.

Plaintiff, a common stock owner of Northstar Realty, alleges that
they will not receive a premium for their shares and end up with a
diluted ownership stake in a combined company that will be dragged
down by the recent financial and corporate governance problems
that have plagued Colony and NSAM.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yelena Trepetin, Esq.
      Charles J. Piven, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN - A Professional Corporation
      1925 Old Valley Road
      Stevenson, MD 21153
      Tel: (410) 332-0030
      Fax: (410) 685-1300
      Email: piven@browerpiven.com
             trepetin@browerpiven.com

             - and -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: 212-983-9330
      Fax: 212-983-9331


PATTERN ENERGY: Jan. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed against Pattern Energy
Group, Inc. ("Pattern" or the "Company") and certain of its
officers.  This class action is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who purchased Pattern between May 9, 2016 and November
4, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Pattern's operations were defective with respect to
various transaction, process level, and monitoring controls; (2)
as an outcome, Pattern lacked sufficient internal financial
controls; and (3) consequently, Pattern's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/pegior contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in
Pattern, you have until January 10, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


PREMIER NUTRITION: "Ravinsky" Alleges Product Mislabelling
----------------------------------------------------------
Annette Ravinsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation
f/k/a Joint Juice, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06704 (N.D.
Cal., November 18, 2016), seeks actual, punitive and statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and litigation costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
as may be just and proper resulting from breach of express
warranty and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.

Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of
joint health dietary supplements that improve joint comfort.
Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride
will provide these significant health benefits. Plaintiff alleges
that glucosamine, alone or in combination with other ingredients
including chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing the
represented joint health benefits.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100
      Fax: (619) 338-1101
      Email: tblood@bholaw.com
             lhurst@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com

             - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 347-3517
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      Edmund S. Aronowitz
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 214-0000
      Fax: (312) 214-0001
      Email: alevitt@gelaw.com
             earonowitz@gelaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 948-9212
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com


PREMIER NUTRITION: "Lux" Alleges Product Mislabeling in Juice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Lux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation f/k/a Joint
Juice, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06703 (N.D. Cal.,
November 18, 2016), seeks actual, punitive and statutory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper resulting from breach of express warranty and for
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Laws.

Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of
joint health dietary supplements that improve joint comfort.
Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride
will provide these significant health benefits. Plaintiff alleges
that glucosamine, alone or in combination with other ingredients
including chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing the
represented joint health benefits.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100
      Fax: (619) 338-1101
      Email: tblood@bholaw.com
             lhurst@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com

             - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 347-3517
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      Edmund S. Aronowitz
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 214-0000
      Fax: (312) 214-0001
      Email: alevitt@gelaw.com
             earonowitz@gelaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 948-9212
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com


PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Merger Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, that
Prudential and the Director Defendants have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the Merger
Litigation.

Prudential Bancorp, Inc. ("Prudential" or the "Company") and
Polonia Bancorp, Inc. ("Polonia") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of June 2, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"),
providing for the merger of Polonia with and into Prudential, with
Prudential as the surviving corporation (the "Proposed Merger").
Prudential (SEC File No. 333-212641) filed a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus, dated as of September 13, 2016 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Merger.

A putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit,
Parshall v. Eugene Andruczyk et al., was initially filed in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (the "Circuit
Court"), Case No. 423219-v, on July 21, 2016 (the "Parshall
Lawsuit"). The Parshall Lawsuit names as defendants the directors
of Polonia ("Director Defendants"), Polonia and Prudential. As
also disclosed in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, a second
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Baron v. Eugene Andruczyk
et al., No. V424400, was filed in the Circuit Court on August 29,
2016 (the "Baron Lawsuit" and together with the Parshall Lawsuit,
the "Merger Litigation"). The Baron Lawsuit names as defendants
the Director Defendants and Polonia. The Merger Litigation alleged
generally that the members of the Polonia board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Polonia shareholders by
approving the Proposed Merger for inadequate consideration,
entering into the Merger Agreement allegedly containing preclusive
deal protection terms and that the disclosure regarding the
Proposed Merger contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus was
materially deficient. The Parshall Lawsuit also alleges claims
against Prudential for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in these actions seek
rescission, or rescissory damages in the event the Proposed Merger
is consummated, attorneys' fees and costs, and other and further
relief.

Prudential, Polonia, and the Director Defendants vigorously deny
the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation.

On October 6, 2016, solely to avoid the costs of protracted
litigation and any potential delay of the Proposed Merger,
Polonia, Prudential and the Director Defendants (Polonia,
Prudential and the Director Defendants, collectively the
"Defendants") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") with the respective plaintiffs (collectively, the
"Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of the Merger Litigation.
Pursuant to the MOU, (i) Prudential and Polonia have agreed to
file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of
Polonia the supplemental disclosures provided below in this
Current Report on Form 8-K, (ii) Polonia has agreed to waive the
prohibition in the nondisclosure agreements entered into by
Polonia with potential interested parties with respect to a party
subject thereto being prohibited from asking Polonia to waive the
standstill provisions that require such party to refrain from
pursuing various actions that relate to acquisition of control of
Polonia without the prior written consent of the Polonia board of
directors during the specified time period, (ii) Prudential has
agreed to waive the enforcement of the provision in the Merger
Agreement prohibiting Polonia from waiving the foregoing
restriction contained in the nondisclosure agreements, and (iv)
the parties have agreed to provide each other with customary
mutual releases concerning the claims related to the Merger
Agreement and the Proposed Merger, including the initiation and
the prosecution of any litigation, subject to approval of the
Circuit Court.

If the Circuit Court approves the settlement contemplated in the
MOU, both the Parshall Lawsuit and the Baron Lawsuit will be
dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the Proposed Merger, the
Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith
will be released and barred. Under the terms of the MOU, counsel
for the Plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Defendants have reserved the
right to contest the amount of any fee and expense petition that
Plaintiffs may pursue. The amount of any fees and expense awarded,
if any, will ultimately be determined and approved by the court,
and will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid
by Prudential. Polonia or its successor or insurer will pay any
fees and expenses potentially awarded by the court. In the MOU,
the parties also have agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare
a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the court and other
documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement.
Pursuant to the MOU, Plaintiffs' counsel is permitted to conduct
reasonable confirmatory discovery as Plaintiffs' counsel believes
in good faith is reasonably appropriate and necessary and as
agreed to by the parties to confirm the fairness and
reasonableness of the terms of the Settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the Circuit Court does not approve the settlement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of shareholders of Polonia scheduled for October 25, 2016 in
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt
the Merger Agreement.  Prudential and the other Defendants deny
all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures
previously included in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus and the
provisions of the nondisclosure agreements and the Merger
Agreement are appropriate under the law.  Nevertheless, Prudential
and the other Defendants have agreed to settle the putative class
action lawsuits in order to avoid the costs, disruptions and
distraction of further litigation.

Prudential and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and
expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
burdens and entered into the MOU solely to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were
or could have been asserted to rest.  Nothing in this Current
Report on Form 8-K, the MOU or any stipulation of settlement shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or any
of the waivers agreed to by Polonia and Prudential.


ROBINSON NURSING: Judge Rules Out Conflict of Interest
------------------------------------------------------
Emily Mongan, writing for McKnight's, reports that an Arkansas
Supreme Court justice who received campaign funds from a nursing
home owner said she has no plans to hand off hearing an appeal in
a wrongful death lawsuit against him.

The lawsuit was brought against Michael Morton, owner of Robinson
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in North Little Rock, AK, by the
family of a resident who died at the facility in 2014.
Mr. Morton then requested an appeal of a court's decision that the
lawsuit be given class-action status.

The resident's family filed a motion to recuse Justice Rhonda Wood
from hearing the appeal, saying a $40,000 campaign contribution
Mr. Morton gave her in 2013 created a conflict of interest.

In her decision, Justice Wood wrote that the total amount of
Mr. Morton's contribution was "insufficient to warrant
disqualification," and that the time that has passed between her
campaign and the appeal's expected spring 2017 hearing date was a
"sufficient cooling-off period."

"All judges have a duty to recuse when the situation warrants but
we also have an equal duty to sit when the facts do not justify
doing otherwise," Justice Wood wrote.  "Injustice occurs when one
makes the wrong decision either way, which is why I certainly did
not make this decision lightly."

Mr. Morton's campaign contributions landed another official,
former circuit court judge Michael Maggio, in hot water in 2015.
Judge Maggio reduced negligence damages against another facility
owned by Morton from $5.2 million to $1 million. He admitted it
was in exchange for a $24,000 campaign donation; the scheme landed
him a 10-year prison sentence.


SAMARCO MINERACAO: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 14 announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Samarco Mineracao S.A. ("Samarco" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 16-cv-08800, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Samarco's 10-year notes respectively due 2022, 2023, and 2024
(collectively, the "Notes") between October 31, 2012 and November
30, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Samarco's Notes during the
Class Period, you have until January 13, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Samarco is a privately held Brazilian mining company, controlled
in equal parts by the Brazilian mining company Vale S.A. ("Vale")
and the Australian mining company BHP Billiton Limited ("BHP").
The Company's main product is iron ore pellets, made from minerals
with low ore content and sold to steel makers worldwide.

Between 2012 and 2014, Samarco conducted at least three debt
offerings.  In 2012, the Company offered an aggregate principal
amount of $1 billion of 4.125% notes due 2022 (the "2022 Notes").
In 2013, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $700
million of 5.75% notes due 2023 (the "2023 Notes").  In 2014, the
Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $500 million of
5.375% notes due 2024 (the "2024 Notes").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company's Fundao tailings dam had longstanding
systemic and structural defects; (ii) despite representing to
investors that Samarco had mitigated the risk of a catastrophic
accident as much as possible through "a combination of risk
management, careful evaluation, experience and knowledge," Samarco
had in fact ignored repeated, reliable warnings regarding the
condition of the Fundao tailings dam; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Samarco's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On November 5, 2015, Samarco's Fundao tailings dam burst, causing
the downstream Santarem water dam to overflow, flooding 60 million
cubic meters of land, decimating the indigenous village of Bento
Rodrigues, and contaminating the Rio Doce River and the water
supply for 200 towns with arsenic, lead, chromium and various
other heavy metals.  Subsequent investigations revealed that
Samarco had for years disregarded safety concerns raised with
respect to the Fundao dam, refusing to implement an emergency
management plan, disregarding warnings of design deficiencies and
the consequences of expanding the dam, and ignoring
recommendations to install pressure sensors and monitor the dam
even after cracks appeared in it.  Brazilian prosecutors have
accused Samarco of deliberate misconduct, charged 21 of its
executives with qualified homicide in connection with the dam's
failure, and are seeking billions of dollars in compensatory and
environmental recovery fees from the Company.  Samarco has not
resumed its mining operations since the collapse.

The offering memoranda issued in connection with Samarco's
offerings of the Notes and the annual management reports issued by
Samarco during the Class Period misrepresented material facts
concerning the Company's programs and procedures to mitigate
environmental, health and safety concerns associated with its
tailings dams.  When the truth about the Company's operations was
revealed by the collapse of the Fundao dam and investigation into
its causes, the value of Samarco's Notes significantly declined,
harming investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Sanderson Farms,
Inc. (the "Registrant"); Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of
the Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive
Officer; and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial
Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed on October 28, 2016, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges
that the defendants made statements in the Registrant's SEC
filings and press releases, and other public statements, that were
materially false and misleading in light of the Registrant's
alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal antitrust laws. A
separate putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Registrant related to those alleged violations, as reported in the
Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6,
2016. The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements
were made in order to, among other things, "artificially inflate
and maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities." The
complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees. The lawsuit is in its earliest stage and the defendants
intend to defend it vigorously.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $28MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S. Laney Griffo, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that Schneider National Carriers Inc. has signed a $28 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought against it by a group
of truck drivers.

The case was originally filed in November 2008 by Morris Bickley.
Similar cases also were filed by Michael D. Pratton, Raymond
Grewe, Dennis Vanhorn and Douglass Pumroy who were all California-
based employees of Schneider National Carriers.

In January 2012, Schneider filed a motion for summary judgment.

"Shortly after [they filed for summary judgment], they entered
into settlement agreements," Paul Taylor, an attorney with
Truckers Justice Center, told the Northern California Record.

On Sept. 7, 2012, the court granted a class certification.
According to the order on motion for class certification, the
plaintiffs claimed Schneider didn't "pay minimum wages for all
hours worked under California law, pay for all miles actually
driven under California law, quantum merit for failure to pay for
all hours worked and miles driven, provide meal periods and rest
breaks, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements and
failure to pay accrued vacation at rate required by California
law."

Approximately 7,700 current or former California-based drivers of
Schneider are affected by this lawsuit.  Despite settling,
Schneider did not believe it was in the wrong.

"Defendant denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind
associated with the claims being released herein.  Defendant
contends, among other things, that it has complied at all times
with all applicable California laws and asserts that the members
of the class were properly compensated for all time worked, and
otherwise treated at all times in compliance with California law,"
the settlement agreement stated.

Schneider settled, however, "in the interest of avoiding costs and
disruption of ongoing litigation," which was stated in the
settlement agreement.

The terms of the agreement said slightly little more than $20
million will be split among the members of the class, which
includes California-based intermodal drivers, dedicated drivers or
regional drivers who work for Schneider from Nov. 25, 2004, to the
present.  The remaining settlement money will be split between
regional subclass groups who had a residence in California, worked
in Schneider's van/truckload division, worked in Schneider's
western regional services group and was assigned to the French
Camp or Fontana operating centers.

On Oct. 13, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White issued his
approval of the settlement.  Although thousands of truck drivers
qualify for the settlement, Mr. Taylor does not believe the
settlement is significant to the industry.

"There is nothing of precedential value because it was settled and
there was no court decision made," Mr. Taylor said.

Mr. Taylor also said many cases similar to this one have been
heard in the courts and there will continue to be similar cases
litigated in the future.

"The only reason this one got attention is because it was against
such a big company," Mr. Taylor said.

According to the Journal of Commerce, Schneider is the largest
privately owned truaffectsompany.  Schneider currently has more
than 11,000 company drivers and an annual revenue of about $4
billion.  Mr. Taylor predicted the next wave of trucking industry
wage disputes will be over whether or not drivers are independent
contractors and how that effects their wages and benefits.


SCRANTON, PA: Sewer Authority Faces Class Action Over Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that six
Scranton and Dunmore residents filed a class-action lawsuit
against the Scranton Sewer Authority claiming its condemnation
easements for old sewer lines under their homes do not pay them
enough for their devalued properties.

Filed recently in Lackawanna County Court, the lawsuit stems from
the authority's pending $195 million sale of the sewer system of
Scranton and Dunmore to Pennsylvania American Water Co.

In preparing for a sale's transfer of assets, the sewer authority
undertook an inventory of its easements earlier this year and
discovered inexplicable gaps in easements for older sewer lines
running under 600 private properties.

The authority sent letters a few months ago to homeowners offering
$100 per easement to expedite the process, or the authority would
pursue condemnations.  Those processes have been underway since
then.  Authority officials explained that easements must be in
place for potential emergency-repair access to properties.

The lawsuit claims the authority failed to get the easements when
sewer lines were installed many years ago.  When the plaintiffs
later bought their homes, they never knew that old sewer lines ran
under their properties because the authority never obtained proper
easements, the lawsuit says.  Forcing the homeowners to provide
easements now for $100 amounts to unjust compensation, the lawsuit
says.

The plaintiffs -- Robert and Ann Marie Hadley of Jefferson Avenue
in Dunmore, Anthony and Megan Moses and Sean Boylan, all of Fisk
Street in Scranton, and Jill Kowalski of Sixth Avenue in Scranton
-- seek unspecified damages.

The sewer lines without easements diminish property values and
deny the owners "the benefit of their bargains" they sought in
buying the properties, the lawsuit says.  The plaintiffs also seek
certification as a class action on behalf of others in the same
situation, and for a court to determine fair compensation for the
easements.

After the authority agreed on March 30 to sell the sewer system,
it rushed to get generic, retroactive easements to ensure the sale
would proceed, the lawsuit says.  By offering $100 per easement or
threatening condemnation, the authority "is simply trying to
retroactively legitimize this unlawful taking without just
compensation," the lawsuit continues.

The broad easements sought do not specify boundaries of rights of
way, and do not give any assurances that properties would be
restored to original conditions after potential underground repair
work.

Efforts to contact a sewer authority solicitor were unsuccessful.

The state Public Utility Commission conditionally approved the
sewer sale Oct. 6.  The water company and sewer authority hope to
complete the transaction by the end of the year.

Sewer deal amended

As required by the state Public Utility Commission's conditional
approval of the sale of Scranton's sewer system to Pennsylvania
American Water Co., the firm and Scranton Sewer Authority removed
an aspect of the deal that PUC opposed because it could have made
the $195 million purchase price open-ended.

An Amended Purchase Agreement filed recently with PUC deletes a
financial mechanism called a "variance adjustment" that PUC found
could have raised the total price a decade from now.

That was because the company initially agreed to cap the growth of
rates for Scranton and Dunmore customers at 1.9 percent per year
over 10 years, or pay an increased sale price -- the variance
adjustment -- if revenues exceeded the cap.  The amended agreement
removes the variance adjustment, continues the rate cap and says
the firm "shall have reasonable discretion" to address rate
increases, subject to future PUC approvals.


SP AUSNET: Judge Wants Hearing on Bushfire Class Action Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that judges overseeing the record --
setting Black Saturday bushfire class actions have called for
sworn evidence from an independent auditor scrutinising law firm
Maurice Blackburn's handling of the settlements, worth more than
$790 million.

The move to hear testimony from costs law specialist John White
came on Nov. 14 as Maurice Blackburn warned it might take legal
action against the Australian Taxation Office challenging an
unfavourable tax assessment that would further reduce the pool of
money available to the bushfire's victims.

More than two years since the firm announced it had negotiated a
$494m settlement -- the largest in Australia's class-action
history -- for victims of the Kilmore East-Kinglake blaze, the
vast bulk of the payments are yet to be made.

Members of the Murrindindi-Marysville class action, which settled
shortly afterwards for $300m, are similarly waiting to receive
their share of the settlement.

Victorian Supreme Court judge Jack Forrest, who is overseeing
Maurice Blackburn's administration of the Kilmore East settlement
scheme, on Nov. 14 said a specific hearing on the firm's costs was
warranted once Mr. White provided an updated report examining the
costs up until October.  He asked for Mr. White to attend court to
answer questions on whether the costs incurred in administering
the scheme had been reasonable.

"I think that will help us," Justice Forrest told Maurice
Blackburn's class actions head Andrew Watson, following agreement
from fellow judge John Dixon, who is overseeing the Murrin-dindi-
Marysville case.

"There might be some questions that arise; I'm not sure whether
there will be."

A number of bushfire victims involved in the class action have
questioned the firm's handling of the settlement scheme amid
concerns about the escalating costs bill and delays in processing
compensation claims.

A new affidavit by Mr. Watson says more than $34m has been charged
so far to administer the two bushfire settlements, on top of fees
for running the class actions.

The firm is now seeking to be paid a further $9.5m for
administration costs and disbursements, including $3.2m for costs
incurred in May and June -- more than double the amount approved
by Justice Forrest for the same period previously.

The firm's partners have reaped record dividends from the class
action windfalls, totalling more than $16m in one year.
Mr. Watson said he now expected bushfire victims who lodged
successful personal injuries claims to receive their settlement
money by the end of the year.

Victims who suffered economic loss and property damage won't
receive their shares until early next year.

He said the ATO had advised the firm during the past fortnight
that interest earned on the settlements was liable to tax and none
of the settlement scheme's costs were deductible -- meaning a
further $20m could be lost to victims.

"It is a double whammy," he said.  "I'm obliged to now get legal
advice about the position with a view as to whether or not we
challenge the assessment."

Outside court, Kinglake survivor Vicki Ruhr welcomed the court's
move to hear further evidence about Maurice Blackburn's handling
of the settlement sums.

"It's absolutely essential," she said.  "There needs to be some
sort of extra oversight."


SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Court Oks Certification in "Jackson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez granted the Plaintiff's
motion for notice to potential plaintiffs and conditional
certification filed in the lawsuit titled DEDRA JACKSON v.
SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN, INC., and CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS LP, Case
No. 3:15-CV-3125-L (N.D. Tex.).

On September 25, 2015, Dedra Jackson brought the collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime
compensation against her former employers, Superior Healthplan,
Inc. and Centene Company of Texas.

In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Ramirez directs the
Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with a list of the names, last
known mailing addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of
all current and former Field Service Coordinators (who were
categorized, known, or identified specifically as Level 2, Level
II, LPN, LVN, or LCSW Field Service Coordinators) who worked for
Defendants in the state of Texas from April 2013 to the present
and were paid primarily on a salaried basis in a computer readable
format within 14 days from the date of the order.

The notice and consent form provided to potential class members
should conform to the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent
form, Judge Ramirez notes.  Potential plaintiffs should be given
notice of the lawsuit and their right to opt-in via first class
mail or e-mail, and they may submit their consent forms no later
than 60 days after the initial mailing.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/I07YmJ from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Dedra Jackson is represented by:

          Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          10440 North Central Expy., Suite 1040
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 706-0834
          Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
          1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com

Defendants Superior Healthplan Inc. and Centene Company of Texas
LP are represented by:

          Kimberly Rives Miers, Esq.
          Saba Harim Alvi, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Suite 1500, Lock Box 116
          Dallas, TX 75201-2931
          Telephone: (214) 880-8180
          E-mail: kmiers@littler.com
                  SAlvi@littler.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Truck Frames Class Action for $3.4 Bil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Bailey, writing for Reuters, reports that Toyota Motor Corp.
has agreed to a settlement of up to $3.4 billion for a federal
class action brought by U.S. owners of pickup trucks and SUVs
whose frames could rust through, plaintiffs lawyers have said in
court papers.

The proposed settlement covers about 1.5 million Tacoma compact
pickups, Tundra full-size pickups and Sequoia SUVs alleged to have
received inadequate rust protection that could lead to corrosion
serious enough to jeopardize their structural integrity, according
to court papers.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in court papers supporting the
settlement estimated the value of frame replacements at about
$3.375 billion based on a cost of about $15,000 per vehicle and
the inspections at about $90 million at $60 per vehicle.

Toyota admitted no liability or wrongdoing in the proposed
settlement filed on Nov. 9 before U.S. District Judge Fernando
Olguin in Los Angeles.

"We want our customers to have a great ownership experience, so we
are pleased to resolve this litigation in a way that benefits them
and demonstrates that we stand behind the quality and reliability
of our vehicles," Toyota said in a statement.

Under the settlement terms, Toyota will inspect the vehicles for
12 years from the day they were first sold or leased to determine
whether frames need to be replaced at company expense and
reimburse owners who previously paid for frame replacement.

The settlement reached on Oct. 31 covers Tacoma trucks from the
model years 2005 through 2010, Sequoias from 2005 through 2008 and
Tundras from the 2007 and 2008 model years.

Toyota also agreed to pay $9.75 million in attorneys' fees,
$150,000 in costs and expenses, and $2,500 each to the named eight
class representatives as well as the cost of advertising the
settlement.

In a separate report, Anthony Wood, writing for WNCT, said court
filings show that the settlement reached on October 31st covers
nearly one and a half million vehicles.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEM: Class Certification Sought in "Young" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned JESSICA YOUNG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10551, (N.D.
Ill.), moves, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, for class certification, and requests that the
Court allow her to represent a class of all persons similarly
situated in the State of Illinois from whom Defendant attempted to
collect a delinquent consumer debt via its form affidavit by
filing the same in a collection lawsuit and from whom Defendant
sought to collect interest that Defendant claimed to have accrued
after charge-off of the debt at issue, from one year before the
date of this Complaint to the present.

The action seeks a finding that Defendant's form affidavit
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; that Defendant's
practice of seeking to collect interest alleged to have accrued on
debts after charge-off violates the FDCPA; and asks that the Court
award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

Plaintiff further requests that briefing on the Motion be stayed
pending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth and
numerosity.  Plaintiff is filing this motion now in conformance
with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v. Clearwire
Corporation, 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), in order to avoid a
"buy-off" settlement offer, or Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, to Ms.
Young only, which could potentially wipe out the Class' claims.

When class discovery is completed, Plaintiff will file a
Memorandum in Support of her motion.

A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tuEQ7LJ5

Jessica Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated is represented by:

     Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
     100 N. Main, Suite 11
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Phone: 877-314-3223
     Fax: 888-632-6937
     E-mail: nathan@mainstreet-law.com


TRINET GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Welgus" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing was held
November 3, 2016, on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint by Howard Welgus.

On or about August 7, 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit
arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
case has not been certified as a class action, although it
purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive.
The name of the case is Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al.

No stockholder other than Mr. Welgus submitted a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff to represent the putative class,
and, on December 3, 2015, the Court appointed Mr. Welgus as lead
plaintiff.

On February 1, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed a consolidated complaint.
The defendants named in that complaint were the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, as well as General
Atlantic, LLC, a significant shareholder, and formerly majority
shareholder, of the Company.

Shortly before the scheduled date for the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, Mr. Welgus sought leave to
further amend the consolidated complaint. The amended complaint
was deemed filed by Mr. Welgus on April 1, 2016. The amended
complaint expanded the class period to March 27, 2014 through
February 29, 2016, and added as defendants the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and additional directors of the
Company. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company
and other defendants caused damage to purchasers of the Company's
stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose facts
generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting health insurance
and workers compensation claims.

On June 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 19, 2016, Mr. Welgus
filed an opposition to the motion, which is now fully briefed and
set for a hearing before the Court on November 3, 2016.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against this
action and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against
the allegations of Mr. Welgus.

TriNet is a provider of comprehensive HR solutions for small to
midsize businesses under a co-employment model.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump's Lawyers File Motion to Delay Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Donald Trump's attorneys filed a
motion to delay until after the presidential inauguration a class-
action fraud lawsuit involving the president-elect and his now-
defunct Trump University.

In the motion filed on Nov. 12 in San Diego federal court,
Mr. Trump's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli argues that the extra months
would give both sides time to possibly reach a settlement.

Mr. Petrocelli lays out a detailed plan that would postpone the
trial until sometime soon after the Jan. 20 inauguration to allow
the president-elect to focus his time and energy on the transition
to the White House, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

The lawsuit alleging Trump University failed on its promise to
teach success in real estate was scheduled to begin Nov. 28.

The motion also requests that Mr. Trump be excused from having to
testify live or in person.  Instead, his lawyers argue he should
be allowed to be questioned by both sides in a videotaped
deposition for trial purposes either shortly before Jan. 20 --
when his transition duties would be nearly complete -- or at a
later time.  That video would then be played at trial.

Mr. Petrocelli asks that the specific date and location of the
recording would be kept secret, until trial, the newspaper said.

In addition, the video testimony would be used not only in this
case, but in a similar Trump University lawsuit also in San Diego
that is not as close to trial -- ensuring Trump won't have to
testify twice.

"The videotaped testimony will ensure no additional delay of trial
based on future scheduling unpredictability,"
Mr. Petrocelli wrote.

If U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denies the motion,
Mr. Petrocelli requests an immediate stay on the proceedings so he
can appeal to a higher court.

Judge Curiel was informed on Nov. 10 during a hearing in the case
that Trump would be seeking a continuance.  The judge didn't
signal how he would rule on the request for a trial delay, but he
encouraged efforts to settle.  He has been reluctant to postpone
the 6-1/2-year-old case any longer.

The lawsuit filed in 2010 on behalf of former customers says Trump
University gave seminars and classes across the country under the
guise of being an accredited school, which it wasn't, and
pressured people to spend up to $35,000 on mentorships from Mr.
Trump's "hand-picked" instructors.

The claims largely mirror another class-action complaint in San
Diego and a lawsuit in New York.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Lawyers Want Trial to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, reports that lawyers pursuing
a federal class-action fraud lawsuit over Donald Trump's Trump
University real-estate program are urging a judge to press forward
with a trial scheduled to begin later this month, even if that
means forgoing any new testimony from the president-elect.

Citing his pressing transition-related obligations, Mr. Trump's
lawyers are asking that the trial set for Nov. 28 be delayed until
sometime after the inauguration, with Mr. Trump providing in the
next two months a new round of prerecorded testimony to be shown
to jurors when the trial takes place.

However, in a court filing on Nov. 14, plaintiffs lawyers warned
U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel that that any further
delays in the case risk rolling the case into Mr. Trump's
presidency and ever more protracted postponements.

"We do know that any delay would be a slippery slope because
President-Elect Trump's life is only going to get more complicated
and unpredictable as time goes by," lawyers for the former Trump
University students wrote.  "Plaintiffs have waited more than six-
and-a-half years for their day in court, and it would be an
injustice to them and undermine the independence and truth-seeking
function of the judiciary to ask them to wait until Trump assumes
office and the demands of the presidency turn from mere
preparation to actual practice . . . . This trial, like so many
Trump University student-victims' credit-card bills, is past due."

Plaintiffs' lawyers are urging that the trial go on as scheduled
and that both sides be required to work with the more than ten
hours of deposition testimony Mr. Trump has already given on the
subject.

"There is no reason to believe President-Elect Trump has any
additional admissible testimony to offer, let alone testimony so
important that he would be prejudiced if he is not able to present
it at trial," the class-action lawyers wrote.

At a hearing, Judge Curiel urged both sides to pursue settlement
talks.  The plaintiffs' filing refers in passing to the
possibility of settlement, but argues that prospect won't be
brought any closer by deferring the trial date until sometime
after the inauguration.

"No case has ever gotten closer to resolution by postponing
trial," the plaintiffs' attorneys observe.

The suit set for trial is one of two class-action lawsuits over
Trump University pending in front of Judge Curiel in San Diego.
Both involve claims that the real-estate seminar and mentorship
program defrauded students by falsely claiming that instructors
were handpicked by Trump and by promoting the idea that the
program was part of an accredited university.

The suit set first for trial involves claims students from
California, New York and Florida have leveled under strict
consumer fraud laws in those states.  The follow-on case is
nationwide in scope and involves racketeering claims under federal
law.

Mr. Trump's recent motion, filed on Nov.12, proposes that he give
one more round of videotaped testimony to be shown at trials in
both federal suits.  If a settlement is reached, it would also
likely cover both cases.

Trump University also faces a suit New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman brought in that state's courts, alleging that
the seminar program continued to use that name there even after
being warned that state law prohibits businesses from calling
themselves universities unless they are properly accredited.

Mr. Trump's lawyers contend that any exaggerations in the
marketing of Trump University amounted to mere "puffery."  They
also say that any misstatements were immaterial since the vast
majority of students said in evaluation questionnaires or videos
that they were satisfied with the program.

Judge Curiel has seemed eager to get on with the trial and he
rebuffed an earlier request for delay due to a conflict with
another case being handled by Mr. Trump's lawyers.  However, it's
unclear if the judge fully considered the possibility that
Mr. Trump would be president-elect as work began to seat a jury in
the case.

A ruling on the pending motion is expected quickly.


U.S. SECURITY: Meal Break Subclass Decertification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case captioned MUHAMMED ABDULLAH, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-09554-GHK
(Ex), (Los Angeles Superior Court BC405465), asks the Court to
decertify a meal period subclass.

The Court certified this on-duty meal period class in January 2011
based on preliminary findings ascertained from a thin factual
record in pre-certification discovery, the motion recalls.  Merits
discovery has established that the "facts" underpinning
Plaintiffs' staffing model theory are either incorrect or
incomplete.

Moreover, U.S. Security has produced substantial evidence
demonstrating that it does not have a single-guard staffing model
but rather staffs guards at each site to align with the
Client's security needs. The evidence also demonstrates that U.S.
Security does not have a company policy requiring on-duty meal
periods. Rather, U.S. Security provides dutyfree meal periods at
numerous work sites, and guards can revoke their on-duty meal
period agreements and receive off-duty meal periods to the extent
a position is available.

The fully developed record also establishes that the nature of the
work dictates the need for on-duty meal periods, not U.S.
Security's scheduling decisions.

Determining the lawfulness of on-duty meal periods requires site,
post and shift specific inquiries. Moreover, the reasonableness of
Plaintiffs' primary contention -- that U.S. Security must staff as
many guards as necessary to provide all guards with off-duty meal
breaks -- cannot be decided by common proof, asserts the motion.

Thus, U.S. Security asks the Court exercise its discretion to
decertify the meal break subclass.

The Court will convene a hearing on January 23, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
to consider the decertification motion.

A copy of the November 16 Notice of Motion and accompanying
Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QKQ3ic0q

Attorneys for Defendant U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC. are:

   Julie E. Patterson, Esq.
   BRYAN CAVE LLP
   3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
   Irvine, CA 92612-4414
   Telephone: (949) 223-7000
   Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
   E-Mail: jepatterson@bryancave.com

        - and -

   Brian A. Sher, Esq.
   Mariangela M. Seale, Esq.
   BRYAN CAVE LLP
   161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
   Chicago, IL 60601-3315
   Telephone: (312) 602-5000
   Facsimile: (312) 602-5050
   E-Mail: brian.sher@bryancave.com
           merili.Seale@bryancave.com


UNITED STATES: Nat'l Guard Vets Want Bonus Payback Issue Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBSLA.com reports that thousands of men and women, who served in
the California National Guard, made a plea on Veterans Day to
President Obama and President-Elect Trump to do more to help
soldiers who were forced to pay back enlistment bonuses.

"We would love a one-on-one, face-to-face with President Trump or
President Obama," California National Guard soldier Sgt. Bryan
Strother said.

He called for a president's executive order to end the California
National Guard's bonus controversy once and for all.

Thousands of soldiers like him were forced to pay back large
incentive bonuses given to them improperly a decade ago.

After public outcry last month, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter
suspended those efforts to recoup money.

He said a new plan will start in January and all cases will be
reviewed by July.

But Sgt. Strother isn't satisfied.  He and his attorney filed this
response as part of their class action lawsuit, saying in part:

"Plaintiff's appeal process took four (4) Years and is average at
best.  To Review all cases within six (6) Months (January to July)
Would equate to the appeal process working at least eight (8)
times faster, which is unrealistic."

"They haven't done anything but kick the can down the road to the
next administration, Sgt. Strother said.

He said that next administration comes with uncertainty and
unknown defense leaders.  So on behalf of veterans on Veterans
Day, this soldier asked for more action.

"If they want to show appreciation for veterans, keep those
contractual promises," Sgt. Strothers added.

He said the Defense Department's plan also doesn't address the
promise of student loan forgiveness and what to do about veterans'
credit scores that have been impacted.


UNITED STATES: Ordered to Implement Immigration Bond System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Stecklow, writing for Fusion, reports that in a 41-page
injunction released late on Nov. 10, federal Judge Jesus G. Bernal
ordered the U.S. government to implement reforms to the
immigration bond system that are roughly the same as the
constitutional requirements for criminal cases.  Immigration
judges must now consider whether or not someone awaiting
deportation proceedings can afford to pay a bond.

"This important ruling recognizes that no person, regardless of
immigration status, should be locked up merely because he or she
is poor, and will help to put an end to the government's
unnecessary detention of immigrants who present no risk to the
community," ACLU of Southern California staff attorney Michael
Kauffman said in a statement.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of
SoCal, the national ACLU, and pro bono attorneys from a powerful
New York City firm on behalf of immigrants stuck in detention
facilities for years simply because they can't afford to bond out.

As the national ACLU's Michael Tan writes, "Imprisoning people
because they're poor -- whether citizens or immigrants -- violates
our fundamental commitments to due process and equal protection.
Indeed, the Department of Justice has argued that locking up
criminal defendants "because of their inability to pay for their
release" is unconstitutional."

In his ruling, Judge Bernal also granted the lawsuit class action
status, including immigrants in the federal court district who
have had a bond set but not been able to pay it.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses IRS Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Saggar Sheth, Esq. -- nsaggarsheth@nossaman.com -- of
Nossaman LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that, the
Internal Revenue Service successfully defeated a putative class
action related to a data breach it suffered in 2015. The D.C.
District Court's decision dismissing the suit demonstrates the
high bar required to hold a federal agency accountable for lapses
in cybersecurity.

In Welborn v. IRS (Case No. 15-1352, D.D.C.), Plaintiffs Becky
Welborn, Wendy Windrich and Beth DuPree, on behalf of a proposed
class, sued the IRS in connection with a cyberattack on the
agency's website in which over 300,000 tax-related documents were
stolen.

Plaintiffs alleged that the IRS violated their rights under the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a, the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq., and the Internal Revenue Code,
26 U.S.C. Sec. 6103, by "disclosing or failing to prevent the
disclosure of their personal identification information to third
parties."

Standing Sufficient Only Where Actual Injury and Causation Shown

As an initial matter, the court determined that only two of the
three named plaintiffs had standing to bring suit.  Mses. Welborn
and Wendrich, who had suffered actual identity theft when someone
filed false tax returns and claimed fraudulent refunds in their
names, had shown sufficient injury-in-fact and causal connection
to the IRS data breach to establish standing to sue for monetary
damages.

Ms. DuPree's claims, however, were dismissed for failure to show
causation.  Although Ms. DuPree alleged that (1) the IRS notified
her that her personal information may have been hacked; (2) no
other entity had informed her of a similar data breach; and, (3)
she had been the victim of at least two instances of fraudulent
activity in her financial accounts following the IRS data breach,
the court ruled that there was no nexus showing that the data
obtained from the IRS breach was necessarily used to perpetrate
the fraud on her accounts.  Simply alleging that the financial
fraud happened after the data breach was insufficient.

Failure to State a Claim Under the Privacy Act and the Internal
Revenue Code

The court also dismissed Plaintiffs' claims under the Privacy Act
for failure to state a claim for actual damages related to the
IRS's alleged failure to safeguard plaintiffs' personal
information.  The court ruled that the fraudulent tax returns
filed in plaintiffs' names, the lost time and money spent dealing
with data theft and future credit monitoring, and the heightened
risk of further identity theft did not equate to actual pecuniary
or material damage related to the IRS data breach.  Sovereign
immunity protects the Federal Government from liability for
reputational or emotional harm.  Similarly, sovereign immunity
barred Plaintiffs' claims under the Internal Revenue Code.

Finally, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs had no standing to sue
for equitable relief under the APA as there was no allegation of
an ongoing threat to their personal information, and that there is
no private right of action under the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act (FISMA).

Needless to say, Courts will set a very high bar for plaintiffs to
allege standing to sue governmental agencies for data breaches.


UNITED STATES: Texas Patriots Tea Party Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
nearly seven years after it applied to the IRS for nonprofit
status, the Albuquerque Tea Party has finally been given a
decision: Denied.

The tax agency, under orders from a federal judge, is belatedly
tackling the remaining tea party cases that it delayed for years,
and so far the tea party isn't doing well.  Only one of the three
groups in the case was approved, and the other two, including
Albuquerque, got notices of proposed denials.

The applicants will have a chance to appeal, but the denials
aren't sitting well with the groups, whose attorney said it's more
evidence that the IRS continues to single out the tea party for
abuse.

"It is clear that we still have an IRS that is corrupt and
incapable of self-correction," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at
the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented a
number of tea party groups in a case against the tax agency.
The one group that was approved was Unite in Action, a Michigan-
based organization that first applied for tax-exempt status more
than six years ago.  The Albuquerque Tea Party and Tri Cities Tea
Party from Washington state were notified of proposed denials.

Still to come is a decision on Texas Patriots Tea Party, a group
that is part of a separate class-action lawsuit out of Ohio.  A
judge in that case ruled that the IRS was likely violating the
group's First Amendment rights by delaying its application and
ordered the tax agency to process and decide on the application.

He called for a president's executive order to end the California
National Guard's bonus controversy once and for all.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Bernstein" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and denies the Defendant's motion to strike the
expert report of David Breshears in the lawsuit entitled JULIA
BERNSTEIN, et al. v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., Case No. 15-cv-02277-
JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are flight attendants, who currently work or have
previously worked for Virgin America, Inc.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Virgin did not pay them for hours worked before, after, and
between flights; time spent in training; time on reserve; time
spent taking mandatory drug tests; and time spent completing
incident reports.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted as to
these class and subclasses:

     Class: All individuals who have worked as California-based
     flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. at any time during
     the period from March 18, 2011 (four years from the filing
     of the original Complaint) through the date established by
     the Court for notice of certification of the Class (the
     Class Period).

     California Resident Subclass: All individuals who have
     worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin
     America, Inc. while residing in California at any time
     during the Class Period.

     Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All individuals who have
     worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin
     America, Inc. and have separated from their employment at
     any time since March 18, 2012.

The Court also appoints the Plaintiffs as class representatives
and appoints Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP and Kosinski +
Thiagaraj, LLP, as class counsel.

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

Plaintiffs Julia Bernstein, Esther Garcia and Lisa Marie Smith are
represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Alison Kosinski, Esq.
          Emily Thiagaraj, Esq.
          KOSINSKI + THIAGARAJ, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 230-2860
          Facsimile: (415) 723-7099
          E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com
                  emily@ktlawsf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Adkins Tomlin, Esq.
          Nancy Villarreal, Esq.
          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
          E-mail: jtomlin@morganlewis.com
                  nancy.villarreal@morganlewis.com
                  rhendricks@morganlewis.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Audi Defeat Device Software Adds to Woes
-------------------------------------------------------
Bertel Schmitt, writing for Forbes, reports that two weeks after a
U.S. judge approved one of the biggest corporate settlements on
record, Volkswagen is spinning its wheels, deeper in the morass
than ever before.  The company has confirmed what Forbes-readers
knew since November 6, namely that "U.S. and European
investigators are looking into fresh irregularities related to
carbon dioxide emissions levels in certain Audi automatic-
transmission vehicles," as the Wall Street Journal writes.
Dieselgate brought Volkswagen's CEO Martin Winterkorn down.  Fresh
CO2gate can cost the job of Audi CEO Rupert Stadler, it might even
lead to changes at the top of Germany's regulator KBA.

Audi's cheating was originally unveiled by Germany's Bild am
Sonntag tabloid, a paper at the forefront of defeat-device
coverage.  Bild reports that Volkswagen Group CEO Matthias Muller
clashed with Mr. Stadler at a board meeting in Wolfsburg [German,
paywall].  An angry Muller asked why he had to learn of Audi's new
cheater code from the media, the paper says, reporting that Mr.
Stadler used the old Winterkorn defense that his engineers kept
him in the dark about the swindle software.

Reportedly, Audi's device, used in "several hundred thousand"
diesel and gasoline-powered cars sold by Audi throughout the
world, keys on movements of the steering wheel to detect that the
car is in the lab.  According to the report, Audi engines were
equipped with the device until as late as May 2016, eight months
after Volkswagen's dieselgate scandal became public in September
2015.  According to BamS, the device causes lower mileage and
hence higher CO2 emissions when the car is off the "rolling road"
used in official emission tests.  This is bound to attract the
attention of Europe's tax collectors.  In most parts of the EU,
CO2 emissions have an immediate effect on the car tax.

In the U.S., at least two class-action lawsuits have been filed
against Audi over the issue.  One lawsuit says the CARB has
"determined that Audi had also surreptitiously installed a gearing
related defeat device in the Class Vehicles.  The defeat device
was used to circumvent the class vehicles' emission control
systems that exist to comply with Clean Air Act emissions
standards," Reuters reports.

Meanwhile, there are new reports that the CO2 cheating is not
limited to Audi.  An investigation by Germany's regulator KBA
showed that out of 54 tested cars "nearly 30 produce much more CO2
than officially stated," Spiegel, wrote on Nov. 12, stating that
"the revelation is explosive for the industry."  While excessive
nitrous oxide emissions are routinely ignored in Europe, misstated
CO2 can result in compensation payments. Deviation of more than
10% can give cause to return the car.  The finance ministry can
demand the underpaid tax.

Even the KBA regulator is in hot water.  The CO2 findings are from
April of this year, but were swept under the carpet.  BILD wrote
of a joint cover-up of the KBA regulator and the auto industry
after emails surfaced, in which the industry influenced the
report.  KBA-chief Ekhard Zinke signed one email "with industry-
friendly regards," the paper says.


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Mislabeled Egyptian Cotton Bed Sheets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Campbell, Shannon Pettypiece and Siddharth Philip, writing
for Bloomberg, report that huddled inside Target Corp.'s
headquarters in downtown Minneapolis, a team of investigators
spent the summer trying to answer what should have been a simple
question: What were hundreds of thousands of the retailer's sheets
actually made of?

What they discovered has undermined trust in a global luxury
product and set off a salvo of class-action lawsuits that have
created a king-sized public relations challenge for the Indian
textiles industry and the US companies it supplies.

Turns out that major American retailers, including Target and Wal-
Mart Stores Inc., have been selling premium-priced sheets
purportedly made of Egyptian cotton -- a byword for luxury in
linens -- but that may in reality be woven with lower-quality
cotton blends.

Three suits seeking to be certified as class-actions have been
filed against supplier Welspun India Ltd -- and a separate one was
directed at Wal-Mart.  The complaint, filed in New York by
customer Dorothy Monahan, accuses the world's largest retailer of
questioning the fiber content of Welspun's products as early as
2008, but not halting its sales until after Target did so in
August.  Wal-Mart said it will "vigorously defend" itself.

The other lawsuits, all filed in the US against Welspun, allege
the company fraudulently labelled its bed sheets as Egyptian
cotton.  Welspun declined to comment on the suits.  Managing
director Rajesh Mandawewala told analysts during a conference call
in August that "the error is on our side so we have to take
responsibility for it."  Target, meanwhile, hasn't been sued.

"The marketing has created this image in our heads that high-
quality cotton and Egypt are synonymous," said Louis Rose, a
Memphis, Tennessee-based cotton industry consultant. "Consumers
should be skeptical of these marketing claims. They'll be under a
lot more scrutiny now."

The fake Egyptian sheet episode came to light after exhaustive
work by Target investigators who analyzed sheet fibers under
microscopes and tracked their journey through a global supply
chain.  The probe found that 750,000 of Target's "Egyptian cotton"
sheets, sold for as much as $75 a pop, didn't contain any Egyptian
cotton at all, but an amalgam of lower-quality fibers from cheaper
sources.

That July discovery touched off a scandal spanning from Minnesota
to Mumbai and Cairo that threatens the future of Welspun, part of
a $3 billion conglomerate headed by entrepreneur Balkrishan
Goenka.  It may also hobble Indian textile manufacturers in the
race to supply Western consumers with high-quality sheets and
towels, creating an opening for competitors from China and
elsewhere to grab the business, according to industry analysts.

The Welspun-made sheets Target examined were sold under the
Fieldcrest brand.  While it has interests in steel, energy, and
infrastructure, textiles are the bread and butter for Welspun,
which says it supplies one in five towels sold in America and
posted revenue of about $900 million in the 2016 fiscal year.
Tennis stars like Roger Federer mop their brows with Welspun
towels at the Wimbledon championships -- a fact the company
highlights in investor presentations.

Target has cut ties and ended all of its $90 million in annual
business with the company. Wal-Mart Stores and Bed Bath & Beyond
Inc. also stopped selling Welspun sheets that had been labeled
100% Egyptian cotton.  Those are significant blows coming from
some of Welspun's biggest customers, and have sent its stock down
about 40% since 19 August when Target announced its decision.

The sheets fiasco reflects a simple reality: There's a scarcity of
Egyptian cotton.  It first became a key export product in the
early 19th century, when it arrived in France and became sought
after for its silky feel.  Production has been falling since the
1990s, however, and last year Egypt's post-revolutionary military
government ended subsidies for cotton farmers to shore up the
state budget.  A gradual decline in output has become a
precipitous plunge.  The US department of agriculture estimates
there will be a 53% decrease in production this year, to an all-
time low of 160,000 bales.

The system for certifying Egyptian cotton is administered from
Cairo by the Cotton Egypt Association, an industry group that
grants stamps of approval to suppliers of 100% Egyptian cotton
products.  To receive one, CEA executive director Khaled Schuman
explained, a manufacturer pays an initial fee of $5,000 and
submits records of Egyptian cotton purchases and product samples,
which undergo DNA analysis to identify whether the fibers were
grown in Egypt or elsewhere.  The companies are charged an
additional $3,000 annually for the certification, according to
Schuman.

But once a certification is granted, producers are mostly left
alone until they need to renew their label a year later. "You
can't put an employee from the association on each production line
to inspect" every item being produced, said Mohamed Negm, who
conducts testing of certification samples for the association to
verify the fibers are Egyptian-grown.  Typically, suppliers like
Welspun purchase cotton in raw form from Egypt for import to Asia,
where it's turned into finished products for sale in the U.S. and
elsewhere, he said.

The highest-quality Egyptian material costs twice as much as the
standard grade sourced from India, providing a powerful incentive
to cheat.  "Factories have mixed the Egyptian cotton with other
low quality cottons to make profit, which has ruined the
reputation of Egyptian cotton," said Mr. Negm, adding that's what
the DNA testing and certification aim to curtail.

During the set-up of the CEA's DNA testing program, Mr. Negm said,
it started analyzing random samples taken from store shelves
globally; 90 percent were fake, mixed with low-quality cottons
from the likes of Sudan, Burkina Faso and Pakistan.

"It's very easy to play it loose during the production process if
you want," said Liu Dang Dang, a foreign sales manager at Chinese
manufacturer Jihua 3542 Textile Co. U.S. retailers "should have
realized how obvious it is," he said, adding that the company,
which supplies Egyptian cotton fabric to manufacturers in the U.S.
and Europe, doesn't engage in the practice.  "The price they want
to pay for Egyptian cotton sheets is so low when the price of
Egyptian cotton is so high."

Widespread blending

Blending is widespread in the industry and quietly tolerated by
many retail chains, according to two executives at producers other
than Welspun who asked not to be identified discussing the
procedure.  Sometimes that means mixing good-quality non-Egyptian
cotton that maintains the same feel amid shortages of the real
thing, but it also often includes using cheaper grades to save
money, said the people, citing their experience with cotton
processing departments and export requirements for US retailers.

The CEA formally announced its DNA testing program in April,
saying the "gold seal" it would give manufacturers who passed
would help "rid the supply chain of falsely labeled goods."
Awkwardly, the first company to receive a gold seal was Welspun,
for bed linens as well as towels and bath rugs.

Target has decided not to rely on CEA certifications going
forward, according to a person familiar with the retailer's
decisions who asked not to be identified discussing internal
matters.  Wal-Mart, by contrast, has said it will continue to rely
on the CEA standard.  Schuman said the organisation is "making
good efforts to make the system tougher" to avoid future problems,
for example by increasing the role of third-party auditors and
monitoring suppliers' inventories more closely.

After discovering problems with Welspun sheets, Target quickly
decided to terminate its entire relationship with the company,
citing "the trust that our guests place in us."  It also opted to
offer refunds to customers who'd purchased them -- even if they'd
been sleeping on them for years.  Wal-Mart has also offered
refunds.

Although Welspun knew Target was investigating its products, its
executives believed that, at worst, the retailer would drop only
its Egyptian cotton sheets, according to a person privy to the
discussions.  Target didn't warn Welspun beforehand about its 19
August announcement that it was ending all its business ties, the
person said, which left the company blindsided.

At the time chairman Goenka's wife Dipali, who leads Welspun's
home textile business, had just returned to India from meetings in
the US; she turned around immediately to do damage-control with
clients, according to a person familiar with the events. In
Mumbai, her husband had called an emergency meeting of department
heads.  He told them to ignore the company's plunging share price
and to focus on their day jobs, and that Welspun would bounce back
over time, the person said.  Both Goenkas declined to be
interviewed.

Welspun, which has said the issue never affected the quality or
safety of its products, hired the audit firm EY to evaluate its
practices and supply chain. The company reports quarterly earnings
on Nov. 15.

The scandal is creating an opportunity for rival Indian supplier
Trident Ltd., which has picked up a significant chunk of Welspun's
business from Wal-Mart, Target and Ikea, said a person familiar
with the situation, who asked not to be identified because the
information is private.  Ikea often uses more than one supplier
for the same product, according to a spokesperson for the Swedish
company, adding that Welspun continues to supply the furniture
retailer while it's also worked with Trident for many years.  Ikea
said it doesn't buy products made from Egyptian cotton due to
sustainability concerns.

Chinese textile producers may also benefit, analysts said.  Big
U.S. retailers tend to "go for Indian companies because they are
cheaper," particularly thanks to lower labor costs, said
Jack Yang, an executive at Chinese manufacturer Yantai Pacific
Home Fashion.

Scarce Cotton

Anyone trying to capitalise, though, faces the same problem: a
shortage of Egyptian cotton.  That, in turn, might assist U.S.
manufacturers of Pima cotton, another high-quality grade that
promotes itself as a rival to the Egyptian variety.

Back in Cairo, the guardians of the country's sole global brand
argue their efforts will be enough to rein in fakes, and they say
the controversy might even have a silver lining.

"If what was happening had continued, in a few years there would
be zero Egyptian cotton," Schuman said.  "The turbulence now is
positive.  It's raising awareness, and we are doing everything we
can to protect the value of our product."


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration in Customers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Veiga, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Wells
Fargo & Co. wants a federal court judge in Utah to order that
customers suing the banking giant over improper sales practices
submit their claims to binding arbitration.

The San Francisco-based company's request applies to a class-
action lawsuit filed initially by three Utah residents who at one
time had accounts with the bank.

They sued Wells Fargo in September, one week after the bank made
headlines for agreeing to pay $185 million to settle allegations
that its workers opened millions of accounts without customers'
permission to reach aggressive sales targets.

The class-action complaint, which alleges breach of contract,
fraud and other claims, now includes 80 named plaintiffs.

In a filing on Nov. 23 to U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups,
Wells Fargo asserted that the plaintiffs agreed to submit any
disputes to arbitration when they signed up for Wells Fargo
checking accounts, credit cards or other services.

The lender also asked the court to allow it to gather more
information on 22 of the plaintiffs so that the company can
determine whether they should also be included in its request to
have plaintiffs' claims deal with via arbitration.

Additionally, Wells Fargo asked Waddoups to dismiss the lawsuit,
in case the company's bid for an arbitration order fails.

The lawsuit is just one example of the extent of the fallout over
Wells Fargo's sales practices scandal, which led to the abrupt
retirement this month of the bank's CEO, John Stumpf.  Wells Fargo
also faces several other lawsuits, as well as criminal
investigations by the Department of Justice and the California
Attorney General's Office.


ZIMMER INC: Judge OKs Canadian Durom Cup Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
while the third bellwether trial involving allegedly defective
Pinnacle hips manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. (DePuy, a
unit of Johnson & Johnson) continues to meander along with no
immediate end in sight, a judge in Canada has approved the
proposed settlement stemming from a class action defective hip
lawsuit.

The Canadian class action lawsuit against Zimmer Inc. (Zimmer) was
initially filed in 2009 and involved allegations associated with
the troubled Durom Cup hip device.  As with other jurisdictions
around the globe, the Durom Cup artificial hip is alleged to have
failed prematurely in scores of Canadian patients due to a lack of
bone adhesion.

According to The Vancouver Sun, some 1,100 class participants
opted into the defective hip class action lawsuit from Ontario and
Quebec, with several hundred more expected to come forward from
Canada's western-most province, British Columbia.  It was in BC
where a judge approved a settlement that had previously been given
the thumbs-up in the other two provinces involved.

According to the approved settlement, compensation is associated
with revision surgery in order to remove, and replace a failed
Zimmer Durom Cup.

The proposed settlement will provide a class member having
undergone what is referenced as an 'uncomplicated surgery' up to
CDN. $97,500 in compensation for pain and suffering.  Those having
experienced a revision procedure where there were complications
would be eligible to receive up to $172,500 in compensation.

There is one caveat: class members would have had to have
undergone surgery by the first of September of last year in order
to qualify for the larger compensation amounts.  Those having
undergone revision surgery after that date would only be entitled
to $600.

The Canadian defective hip implant class action was originally
launched in the same year as Zimmer recalled, and then
subsequently halted sales of the troubled Durom Cup in November,
2009.  According to The Vancouver Sun the device had been on the
market for about five years, prior to the defective hip implant
recall.

There had been 14 objections filed with respect to approving the
proposed settlement.  However, that wasn't enough for BC Supreme
Court Justice Gregory Bowden to delay, or deny the proposed class
action settlement.  Judge Bowden referenced the class action in
his ruling as a complex litigation with a risk that if it was not
approved, the plaintiffs would not be successful at a trial to
determine common issues.

What's more, Judge Bowden said, the expense associated with such
future litigation had not been estimated but "would clearly be
very substantial.

"Having regard to the factors referred to in these reasons, I have
concluded that the settlement agreement in this case is fair,
reasonable and in the best interests of the class members as a
whole, and should be approved."

Meanwhile, in the US the third DePuy bellwether trial drags on in
Dallas.  Six plaintiffs are involved, one more than the five
plaintiffs represented by the second bellwether trial that ended
in March with a $502 million verdict for the plaintiffs.  The
award was subsequently reduced to about $150 million in deference
to Texas laws which mandate a cap on punitive damages.

In spite of earning a reduced award due to the Texas cap, Johnson
& Johnson (J&J) lobbied for the third bellwether trial to be
delayed until an appeal associated with the second trial was
complete.  The Fifth Circuit denied J&J's petition, and the third
bellwether trial has been ongoing since the end of September.

There is much interest, given the outcome of the first bellwether
trial: a decisive win for the defendant over a single plaintiff.
With the second trial (pending appeal) finding for the five
plaintiffs -- and the current trial involving six plaintiffs --
all eyes are trained on the outcome of this defective hip implant
bellwether trial.


* Feb. 15 Deadline Set for Comments on Proposed Class Action Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that members
of the public, bar and bench have three months remaining to submit
written comments on various proposed amendments to the Federal
Rules of Practice and Procedure, most notably an update to the
rule governing class action lawsuits.

The proposals were published in August by the Judiciary's
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.  Written comments
are due by Feb. 15, 2017.

The recommendations, which also include a proposal to mandate
electronic filings by lawyers, among other things, could affect
eight appellate rules, 12 bankruptcy rules, four civil rules and
three criminal rules, as well as bankruptcy and appellate forms
and a bankruptcy rules appendix, according to the U.S. Courts.

"All comments on these proposed amendments will be carefully
considered by the advisory committees, which are composed of
experienced trial and appellate lawyers, judges and scholars,"
wrote Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, chair of the Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure, in an August letter introducing the
proposals.

According to Judge Sutton's letter, a total of eight public
hearings, each covering specified amendments, have been scheduled,
starting October through Feb. 24, 2017.

Civil Rule 23, which governs class action lawsuits, has been
amended four times since its adoption in 1934.  Most recently, it
was revised in 2003.

The current proposed changes to the rule were discussed in nearly
two dozen meetings, according to a report signed by Judge John D.
Bates, chair of the Judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

"The principal topic of the proposed amendments is the process of
settling class actions, which is important because many class
actions settle and the court has distinctive responsibilities in
reviewing such settlements," the report said, according to the
U.S. Courts.

One amendment would create a standardized set of factors for
judges to consider, in deciding whether to approve a class-action
settlement as "fair, reasonable and adequate."  Currently, these
factors vary among federal appellate courts.

Other changes would guide judges in assessing whether to certify a
class action for settlement purposes, and permit electronic as
well as paper notification of potential class action participants.

"Generally, the amendments would codify the common practice of
sending concurrent notice to class members for both the action
itself and the potential settlement; allow notice through more
modern means; and place more obligations on parties to provide the
court with a record before notifications are sent out,"
Christopher P. Gramling, assistant general counsel to Eli Lilly
and Company, wrote in a counsel's advisory for the Washington
Legal Foundation.  "Further, the amendments would mandate a
hearing to determine if the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and codifies a balancing test of factors.

"Finally, the amendments would provide additional requirements for
class member objections while eliminating courts' approval for
each withdrawal of an objection."

The federal judiciary's rulemaking process is guided by the Rules
Enabling Act.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice Procedure usually
require two to three years of review, public hearings and multiple
layers of approval.

Before any amendments are adopted, they must be approved by the
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Judicial
Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Congress then has a time period in which it can reject changes
approved by the Judiciary.

The earliest the proposed amendments can be adopted is Dec. 1,
2018, according to the U.S. Courts.


* FTC to Study Class Action Settlement Notice Programs
------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Valley News reports that to study of the effectiveness of
various class action settlement notice programs, the Federal Trade
Commission has issued orders to eight claims administrators,
requiring them to provide information on procedures they use to
notify class members about settlements and the response rates for
various methods of notification.

The orders are part of the Commission's Class Action Fairness
Project, which strives to ensure that class action settlements in
consumer protection and competition matters provide appropriate
benefits to consumers.  Under the project, the FTC monitors class
actions and files amicus briefs or intervenes in appropriate
cases; coordinates with state, federal, and private groups on
important class action issues; and monitors the progress of
legislation and class action rule changes.

Also included in the project are two proposed studies: the Notice
Study, which examines consumer perception and understanding of
class action notices and the options they provide to consumers,
and the Deciding Factors Study, which analyzes factors that
influence consumers' decisions to participate, opt out of, or
object to a class action settlement. The initial comment periods
for both studies required by the Paperwork Reduction Act have
closed.  The Commission will use these studies to guide the Class
Action Fairness Project.

The Commission vote to issue orders to file a special report was
3-0.  The Commission is authorized to issue these orders by
Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. (FTC File No P024210; the staff
contacts are Robin Moore, Division of Enforcement, 202-326-2167 or
Colin MacDonald, Division of Enforcement, 202-326-3192.)


* Queensland's Introduction of Class Action Regime Praised
----------------------------------------------------------
Lara Bullock, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that legal
bodies and law firms alike have welcomed the introduction of a
class action regime and the removal of limitations periods for
child sexual abuse in Queensland.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) and Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers praised the introduction of the Limitation of Actions
(Institutional Child Sexual Abuse) and Other Legislation Amendment
Bill 2016.

Maurice Blackburn principal Vavaa Mawuli said the introduction of
a class actions regime within the act will help to bring
Queensland in line with other states, including NSW and Victoria,
and provide greater access to justice for Queenslanders.

"This is an important step, and one that we welcome.  Through the
passage of this legislation, Queenslanders are a critical step
closer to greater access to justice locally," Ms. Mawuli said.

"The class actions regime plays a fundamental role in helping to
deliver collective legal remedies to people that may not otherwise
be able to pursue their legal rights, including those wronged by
large corporations or entities."

ALA Queensland president Michelle James said the regime will mean
more people can enforce their rights, as it's often not
financially viable for people to pursue their claims individually,
but under a class action it is possible.

"Class actions can be the only way for people to assert their
rights against big corporations or other entities, so this law
will mean that justice will be much easier to access for
Queenslanders," Ms. James said.

"Queensland's adoption of the class action regime is a significant
measure that will mean plaintiffs will no longer have to cross
state borders to be able to file class actions. This can only make
justice more accessible."

The new law also removes limitations periods for personal injury
claims relating to child sexual abuse in both institutional and
non-institutional contexts.

"In terms of limitations periods, the act recognizes that for many
survivors of child sexual abuse it can take years or even decades
to be ready to come forward to explore their legal rights," Ms.
James said.

"This act remedies a great injustice by providing survivors with
the means to explore avenues for compensation in their own time.
They will no longer be restricted by time limits that deny them
their rights."


                            *********

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  * * *