CAR_Public/161206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 243




                            Headlines

ACCOUNT RESOLUTION: Court Rejects Hall's Claims in "Melton" Suit
ADVANCED MICRO: January 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ALPHA GAS: Court Grants Prelim OK of $1.1MM TCPA Class Deal
ANTONELLI COLLEGE: Reopens Nursing Program Amid Class Actions
ARIZONA: Border Patrol Ordered to Improve Detention Conditions

ATKINS & OGLE: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collector Practices
AUSTRALIA: Retta Dixon Abuse Class Action to Enter Mediation
AUSTRALIA: Baby Exposed to Williamtown RAAF Base Contamination
AUSTRALIA: Defence to Sue Third Parties Over RAAF Contamination
AUSTRALIA: DoD Has Until Feb. to Reply to Contamination Case

AVID TECHNOLOGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Settle Suit vs. Bank
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Tennessee
BASK TECHNOLOGY: Court Rejects "Ferreri" Suit Settlement
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Haas Files Appeal in 3rd Circuit

C&J ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of Miami Trust Suit Pending
CABELL, WV: Preliminary Injunction Granted in "Mullins" Suit
CAESARS ACQUISITION: Court Tosses "Koskie" Suit Over CEC Merger
CAESARS GROWTH: Court Stays Proceedings in Noteholders Class Suit
CAESARS GROWTH: "Koskie" Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice

CEMPRA INC: Faces Pasqual Securities Suit Over Misleading Info
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Confidential Mediation Ongoing in Water Suit
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit by Residents of U.S. Smelter Area
CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING: Bid to Exclude Evidence Partly Granted

COLONY STARWOOD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss South Miami Suit
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: "Warren" Suit Remains Stayed in Missouri
CYNOSURE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Ficken" Class Suit Underway
CYNOSURE INC: Explores Possible Class Settlement With ARcare
CYNOSURE INC: Wins Partial Judgment in Certain Claim in LDGP Suit

DEAN FOODS: Agrees to the Dismissal of Indirect Purchasers Suit
DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Retailers Suit Set for Trial on March 28
DNC SERVICES: Former Organizer Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EAGLE ROAD: Nearly 300 Earthquake Damage Claims Filed

EMPIRE DISTRICT: Agrees to Present Suit Settlement to Court
EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: Sued for Denying Health Insurance Coverage
ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Stockholders to File Consolidated Complaint
FACEBOOK INC: "Nagby" Files Securities Class Action in Nevada
FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Settlement Checks Distributed

FANDUEL: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration in Antitrust Case
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Faces Mergers-Related Class Suit in Maryland
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Dismissal of "Mungiello" Suit Affirmed
FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
HERSHEY'S: Says Kisses False Advertising Class Action Meritless

HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Somalia Veterans File Mefloquine Class Action
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Loses TCPA Class Suit Challenge
HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Silver Fix Suit Granted in Part
HSBC USA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hill" Madoff-Related Suit
HSBC USA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Amended Gold Fix Suit

HSBC USA: Faces Class Suit in New York by Indirect FX Purchasers
HSBC USA: Has Final Approval of Checking Account Overdraft Deal
HSBC USA: HK and Shanghai Banking Wins Bid to Toss "Giron" Suit
IAC: Board Members Sued for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
ILLINOIS: Dec. 14 FOID Card Case Management Conference Set

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Appeals $15-Bil. Ruling in Smokers' Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: California Court Dismisses "Melot"
JAMES HARDIE: Cladding Class Action Begins in NZ High Court
JANSSEN PHARMA: Wants Invokana Cases Transferred to Federal Court
JERICHO OIL: Named Defendant in Okla. Earthquake Class Action

K ZARK MEDICAL: Rosario-Medina Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
KEG N KITCHEN: Former Workers Files Wage Class Action
KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Mosseri" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Approval of Rights-of-Way Suit Deal
LIFE PARTNERS: Creditors Trust to Handle Class Action Settlements

LUDLOW MUSIC: Court Narrows Claims in Copyright Suit
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Bid to Dismiss "Aguilar" Plaintiffs Denied
MARIANI PACKING: Settles Labor Class Action for $400,000
MDL 1566: Court Rules on Motions in Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
MERCK & CO: 1,370 Propecia/Proscar Suits Pending as of Sept. 30

MERCK & CO: 285 Femur Cases Pending in Cal. State Ct. at Sept. 30
MERCK & CO: 2,940 Femur Cases Pending in New Jersey State Court
MERCK & CO: 4,310 Fosamax-Related Cases Pending as of Sept. 30
MERCK & CO: Defends 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Product User Claims
MERCK & CO: Defends International Vioxx Suits in Brazil & Europe

MERCK & CO: Discovery Currently Ongoing in Femur Fractures MDL
MERCK & CO: Has Resolved All Vioxx-Related Securities Lawsuits
MERCK & CO: Seeks Summary Judgment in K-DUR Antitrust Litigation
MERCK & CO: Has Deals to Settle Vioxx Suits in Alaska, Montana
METLIFE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pension Fund Suit

MICHIGAN: Asks Court to Dismiss Suit Over Educational System
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Schwartz" Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Various False Advertising Class Suits
MOTION PICTURE: Judge Dismisses 'R' Rating SLAPP Class Action
NAVIENT CORP: Blyden Appeals Dismissal of Suit to Ninth Circuit

NAVIENT CORP: California Court Dismisses "Beechum" Class Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Class Suit in Indiana
NAVIENT CORP: Lord Abbett Amends Consolidated Securities Suit
NAVIENT CORP: "Ubaldi" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
NESTLE PURINA: Judge Dismisses Beneful Dog Food Class Action

NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Action Over Tampered DWI Cases
NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Santa Clara Pigment Suit Remains Pending
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Lead Pigment Litigation
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Files More Support on Bid to Toss SEPTA Suit
OTTAWA: Armed Forces Faces Sexual Discrimination Class Action

PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Dillard" Suit
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Defends 3 Suits Over RELISTOR
QUANTUM ON THE BAY: Tenant Sues Over High Condo Move-in Fees
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Fekete" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RIVER RUN: Court Allow Fraud Class Action to Proceed

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: 1st Circuit Sets Briefing in "Corban" Suit
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Kader's Bid to Further Amend Suit Pending
SOTHEBYS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Graham" Suit Claims Pending
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: "Ubaldi" Suit Remains Pending in California
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Four Class Suits Over Abbott Merger
ST. PAUL, MN: Class Action Mulled Over Right-of-Way Assessments
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Jan. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TERMINIX INT'L: Brief in "Eubank" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Mar 3
TOYOTA: 225,000 Steel Vehicle Frames Expected to Be Replaced

TREEHOUSE FOODS: January 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Watchdog Says Sanctions Must Stand
US COACHWAYS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $49.9 Million
VCA INC: Graham Appeals Order Denying Class Certification
VCA INC: Discovery Proceeding in "Bradsbery" Class Action Suit

VCA INC: "Lopez" Suit Now Closed After Accord Went Into Effect
VCA INC: Representative Claims Under PAGA Pursued in "Duran" Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Soy-Based Insulation Wire Coating
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Awaits Order on Bid to Appeal in Youngers Suit
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending

WACKENHUT CORP: Decertification Order in "Lubin" Reversed
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Meiners" ERISA Class Action in Minn.
WELLS FARGO: "Lieber" Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
WILLIE'S CHICKEN: Sauls Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
WINDSTREAM SERVICES: "Doppelt" Suit Remains Pending in Maryland

YAHOO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Personal Data Breach

* CFPB Launches Inquiry Into Consumer Financial Data Access
* Circuit Split Over Arbitration Class Action Waiver Widens
* Obama Admin. Seeks to Curb Insurance Mandatory Arbitration
* Netherlands to Introduce Monetary Damages Collective Action
* Social Networks May Impact Class Action Notice Methods

* Tobacco Settlement Fees Spread to Former Chicago Alderman


                            *********


ACCOUNT RESOLUTION: Court Rejects Hall's Claims in "Melton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD MELTON and DESIREE HALL, Plaintiffs,
v. ACCOUNT RESOLUTION TEAM, INC., f/k/a TCCA, Inc., Defendant, No.
3:15-cv-00469 (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Pamela L. Reeves granted Account
Resolution Team, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings and
dismissed Desiree Hall's claims with prejudice.

On September 18, 2015, Richard Melton sued Account Resolution
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  Melton
claimed that Account Resolution, a debt-collection agency, sued to
collect his debt in an improper court.

On November 10, 2015, Melton amended his complaint.  He added
Desiree Hall as a plaintifff and converted the suit into a class
action.  Melton and Hall sued Account Resolution under 15 U.S.C.
sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692i(a)(2).

Account Resolution moved for judgment on the pleadings seeking to
dismiss all claims brought by Hall.

Judge Reeves found that Hall's suit is barred by the statute of
limitations.  The judge explained that plaintiffs suing under the
FDCPA must do so within one year of when the defendant violated
the Act.  Judge Reeves pointed out that Account Resolution filed
its collection lawsuit against Hall on October 2, 2014, which
means that Hall had to sue Account Resolution by October 2, 2015.
Hall, however, did not do so until she was added as a plaintiff on
November 10, 2015.

A full-text copy of Judge Reeves's November 21, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/YfRbne from
Leagle.com.

Richard Melton, Plaintiff, represented by Alan C. Lee, Alan C.
Lee, Attorney.

Richard Melton, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Holland, The
Holland Law Firm, P.C. & Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm, LLC..

Account Resolution Team, Inc., Defendant, represented by John M.
Lawhorn -- jlawhorn@fmsllp.com -- Frantz, McConnell & Seymour,
LLP.


ADVANCED MICRO: January 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
To All Persons who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Shares of
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Stock

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSU DENNJ
SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR

Plaintiffs,
CLASS ACTION
       v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RORY
P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, RICHARD
A. BERGMAN AND LISA T. SU,
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF
CLASS ACTION

Defendants

To all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the publicly traded common stock of Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. during the period from April 4, 2011 through October
18, 2012, inclusive.

You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") and Individual Defendants Rory P.
Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Richard A. Bergman, and Dr. Lisa T. Su
(collectively "Defendants").  The Court authorized this notice, is
allowing the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of a
Class, and appointed attorneys as Class Counsel.  The Court has
not decided that Defendants did anything wrong.  Defendants have
not been ordered to pay any money.  No settlement has been
reached.  There is no money available now and no guarantee that
there will be in the future.

The lawsuit claims that investors suffered losses resulting from
allegedly materially false and misleading statements Defendants
made about the manufacturing and subsequent launch of, as well as
the demand for, AMD's Llano microprocessor between April 4, 2011
and October 18, 2012, allegedly in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendants deny any wrongdoing in this
lawsuit and believe that the claims are without merit.

You are a potential Class Member only if you purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of
AMD during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012,
inclusive.  Excluded from the Class are AMD and the Individual
Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual
Defendants; AMD's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who was
an officer or director of AMD or any of AMD's subsidiaries or
affiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which any
Defendant has a controlling interest; AMD's employee retirement
and benefit plan(s); and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity.
Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that timely
and validly requests exclusion from the Class.  In addition,
Defendants have reserved their rights to move to
de-certify the Class, in whole or in part, or to seek the
exclusion from the Class of certain entities or individuals at a
later date.

If you want to stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything
now.  If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class, be bound by
the Court's orders, and will lose any right you may have to sue
Defendants over the claims in this case.  You must exclude
yourself if you do not want to be a Class Member or to be bound by
what the Court does and want to keep any rights you may have to
sue Defendants over the claims in this case.  To be excluded, you
must send a letter to Epiq Systems, Inc. at P.O. Box 4349,
Portland, OR 97208-4349, and must include certain information, as
set forth in the long-form notice available at the website listed
below.  If excluded, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if
any are awarded.  The deadline to exclude yourself is
January 19, 2017.

This notice is only a summary.  For more information visit
www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-844-855-8569.


ALPHA GAS: Court Grants Prelim OK of $1.1MM TCPA Class Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
David N. Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- and Julie
D. Hoffmeister, Esq. --julie.hoffmeister@troutmansanders.com-- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval of a $1.1 million Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) class action settlement against Alpha Gas
and Electric, LLC ("Alpha Gas").  The opinion is the latest in a
string of recent TCPA settlements affecting a wide range of
industries.

I.  Background

On July 8, 2015, the named Plaintiff, Stewart Abramson, filed his
class action Complaint against Alpha Gas.  According to the
Complaint, Alpha Gas provides gas and electrical services for both
residential and commercial customers in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Alpha Gas allegedly uses telemarketing to
obtain new clients and supposedly placed a telemarketing call to
Plaintiff's cell phone.  Plaintiff claims that when he answered
the call, there was no one on the other end of the line.  He "said
hello three times before hearing a distinctive 'click' and a
telemarketing representative answered his greeting."  Based on
these facts, Plaintiff claimed that Alpha Gas used an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to place the telemarketing call
without Plaintiff's prior express consent, in violation of the
TCPA.

Plaintiff sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons
"who, within four years prior to the filing of this action,
through the date of certification, Defendant or some person on
Defendant's behalf, called using an automated telephone dialing
system to phone numbers that are assigned to a cellular telephone
service."  According to Plaintiff's expert witness who analyzed
Alpha Gas's call logs, the electric company allegedly made or
caused to be made 452,124 telemarketing calls to 251,504 unique
cellular telephone numbers.

The parties engaged in litigation for over a year.  Alpha Gas made
an Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff, which was rejected.  Alpha Gas
then petitioned the Court for a stay pending the Supreme Court's
decisions in Spokeo and Campbell-Ewald, which was granted.   The
parties subsequently agreed to continue the stay after the
issuance of the Supreme Court's decisions in an effort to settle
the case.  On August 8, 2016, the parties participated in a full-
day mediation and reached an agreement on the material terms of a
class settlement.

II. Class Action Settlement

The settlement class consists of:

All individuals and entities who at any time subscribed to, used,
regularly placed or received calls on or from or owned any of the
phone numbers that are listed and/or contained in the Class List,
who, from July 8, 2011 through the date of class certification,
[Defendant] called using an automated telephone dialing system or
prerecorded voice, or who were listed on the Do Not Call list or
otherwise did not consent to the receipt of such calls, or who
otherwise have claims against the Released Parties arising under
the TCPA or similar federal, state or local laws governing such
matters, including without limitation the claims alleged in the
Action, including calls placed to cell phones without the
recipients' consent.

The settlement provides for a $1.1 million common fund that will
be divided among claimants who submit valid claims.  Class counsel
intends to apply, subject to the approval of the Court, for a fee
award of up to one-third of the common fund and for an incentive
award of $10,000 for the named plaintiff.  Finally, the settlement
agreement provides that Alpha Gas will retain counsel to advise it
regarding its future telemarketing compliance with the TCPA and
related laws.  A final fairness hearing is scheduled for April
2017.

III. Conclusion

All industries, ranging from motor coach leasing companies to debt
collectors and gas and electric companies, are facing high-priced
TCPA class action settlements and exposure.  Companies should take
notice of the TCPA's requirements and ensure compliance before
becoming the next target of the plaintiffs' bar.

Troutman Sanders has a team of seasoned TCPA litigation and
compliance lawyers that regularly advise companies on strategies
to comply with the TCPA.  Troutman Sanders' vast experience in
TCPA-related obligations and compliance helps clients better
identify compliance-related issues before they become problematic.


ANTONELLI COLLEGE: Reopens Nursing Program Amid Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Caproni, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that Antonelli College's Cincinnati campus has begun enrolling
students for its nursing program that lost accreditation in March.

The Ohio Board of Nursing voted to extend conditional approval of
the practical nursing program at the college, and students can
start enrolling now for the semester that begins in January.

"We are thrilled with the board's decision to extend approval for
our nursing program," Mary Ann Davis, president of Antonelli
College, said in a statement.  "We have worked very cooperatively
with the board to be certain we are in compliance with all the
requirements of a quality PN program.  This extension of our
approval validates all of our efforts and allows us to continue to
serve our students and the Greater Cincinnati community."

The program lost its accreditation in March after it failed to fix
some violations and standard issues discovered by the board.
Following the program's suspension, class-action lawsuits were
filed by students.

Nursing student Annie Borden filed a class action suit against
for-profit Antonelli in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
on April 5.  In her suit she claims that she and other nursing
students -- a number her attorney estimates to be between 40 and
50 -- were misled about the status of the school's practical
nursing program's accreditation with the state of Ohio and
continued to be charged tuition up through the program's ultimate
suspension on March 30.  The case has been moved to federal court.

A second class-action suit against the school and its nursing
program was later filed on behalf of student Tenesha Adams and
other Antonelli nursing students.  It has also been moved to
federal court in conjunction with Borden's case.

Both class-action lawsuits claim the nursing program at Antonelli
has been fraught with issues since it was granted conditional
approval to operate the program in 2012.  Court documents state
that the college asked the board to postpone the implementation
date of its conditional approval twice, ultimately to September
2013.

Student Lauren Cross and twelve other students expected to
graduate in May filed a separate lawsuit in Hamilton County courts
on charges of fraud, breach of contract and negligence, the
Enquirer reports.  A jury trial in that case is set for
June 5, 2017.


ARIZONA: Border Patrol Ordered to Improve Detention Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Astrid Galvan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge in Tucson, Ariz., has ordered the Border Patrol to
improve conditions at its holding facilities in most of the state,
saying the agency was not following its own standards by keeping
migrants in crowded, cold cells without proper bedding.

Judge David Bury issued the temporary order on Nov. 18 requiring
the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector to provide clean mats and thin
blankets to migrants held for longer than 12 hours and to allow
them to wash or clean themselves.

Judge Bury said plaintiffs presented persuasive evidence that
basic human needs of migrants were not being met.

The case was brought last year by the ACLU, the Morrison and
Foerster law firm, and other immigrant rights organizations on
behalf of migrants who say the Border Patrol's holding facilities
in Arizona are unsanitary, extremely cold and inhumane.  Migrants
regularly call holding cells "hieleras," the Spanish word for
"freezer."

"We believe that the conditions were so below par that when you
have people, whether it's two nights or one night sleeping on the
floor, that is just below any constitutional standards or norms of
decency," ACLU senior counsel Dan Pochoda said.

Judge Bury issued the temporary injunction after a hearing at
which both parties made arguments.

The Border Patrol has defended its practices and said it's
committed to the safety, security and welfare of detainees.  The
agency did not respond to a request for comment on the order.

It maintains that it provides migrants with basic human needs in
accordance with its own policies, and that agents provide medical
care, warmth, sanitation, food and water, and allows detainees to
sleep.

But photos released this year after a legal battle by the
government to keep them under seal show men jammed together under
a thin thermal blanket and a woman using a concrete floor strewn
with trash to change a baby's diaper.

Other photos show rusty toilets, dirty toilet paper on the floor
and a malfunctioning water fountain in detention areas.

The cells shown in the images are designed to provide short-term
shelter for detainees until they can be processed, the agency
said.  Migrants are usually deported or transferred to the custody
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has long-term
detention centers.

The order issued on Nov. 18 applies to the Tucson Sector's eight
facilities and is temporary while the case plays out in court,
although Mr. Pochoda says it's a good indicator that plaintiffs
have the upper hand.

Bury also ordered the Border Patrol to provide medical screening
at all times at all stations, monitor cell temperature, ensure
that the stations have working sinks and toilets and other
materials "sufficient to meet the personal hygiene needs" of
migrants, and provide personal products like toilet paper and
toothbrushes.

Last year, Judge Bury issued sanctions against the Border Patrol
over destruction of surveillance video evidence in the case.

The coalition receives continuous surveillance video from the
Border Patrol as ordered by Bury, said Nora Preciado, a staff
attorney for the National Immigration Law Center.

The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of three immigrants but
is now a class-action suit.


ATKINS & OGLE: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collector Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
Raleigh County couple has filed a class action lawsuit against
Atkins & Ogle Law Offices alleging it violated the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

Jamie D. Thornton and Russell P. Thornton entered into a retail
installment sales contract and security agreement with Wells Fargo
Financial on July 3, 2006, to purchase and finance a used motor
vehicle, according to a complaint filed Sept. 6 in Raleigh Circuit
Court.

The Thorntons claim they subsequently defaulted on the contract
and the vehicle was repossessed and sold at a private sale on
March 30, 2010.

The plaintiffs received a written explanation of the calculation
of the deficiency from Wells Fargo after the sale of the
collateral by letter dated April 1, 2010, establishing a
deficiency balance due of $10,220.37 and, on May 19, 2011, Wells
Fargo assigned and/or sold the rights under the contract to
Autovest, according to the suit.

The Thorntons claim after Autovest obtained the assignment of the
former Wells Fargo debt, it retained Atkins & Ogle to collect the
alleged debt.

Atkins & Ogle engaged in an attempt to collect the alleged debt by
sending collection letters, placing telephone calls and otherwise
attempting to collect the alleged debt, according to the suit.

The Thorntons claim Atkins & Ogle then filed a civil action
against them on July 29, 2014, seeking to obtain judgment against
them.

Atkins & Ogle violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act and constitutes common law abuse of process,
according to the suit.

The Thorntons are seeking compensatory damages.  They are being
represented by Ralph C. Young, Christopher B. Frost, Steven R.
Broadwater Jr. and Jed R. Nolan of Hamilton, Burgess, Young &
Pollard; and Jonathan R. Marshall --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey & Glasser.

Raleigh Circuit Court case number: 16-C-574


AUSTRALIA: Retta Dixon Abuse Class Action to Enter Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Bardon, writing for ABC, reports that former residents of a
church-run home for Indigenous Stolen Generation children in
Darwin have moved a step closer to becoming the first group to
gain compensation from the Federal Government after giving
evidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to
Child Sexual Abuse.

Eighty-five Retta Dixon Home residents launched a class action in
the Northern Territory Supreme Court in September 2015 to try to
gain redress for years of horrific sexual and physical abuse.

The case has now been put on hold because the Commonwealth has
agreed to go into mediation.

Bill Piper is the residents' solicitor.

"The Commonwealth have been proposing the mediation at this point,
which is a very positive thing, because it's consistent with a
party to an action that is acting in good faith and wanting to try
and resolve it," he said.

Former Retta Dixon resident Sue Roman is also welcoming the
Federal Government's latest move.

"That's pretty encouraging and we're really looking forward to
that opportunity to sit down and mediate an outcome," she said.
'The impacts have been horrendous'

Sue Roman was taken from her mother, who had also been removed
from her own mother, to Retta Dixon, as a baby, in 1950.

She was like many of the children there, forcibly taken from
Indigenous mothers, to the home run by Australian Indigenous
Ministries from 1946 to 1980, and overseen by the Commonwealth.

Other children were taken there voluntarily by unsuspecting
mothers who could not afford to look after them or thought they
would be given a better life.

Sue Roman spent 13 years at Retta Dixon, before being sent to a
foster family in Victoria.

"The abuses Retta Dixon people suffered need to be addressed, from
physical, mental, sexual, lack of education, and a child died at
the hand of one of the missionaries," she said.

Ms Roman said giving evidence to the Commission, in Darwin two
years ago, about rapes, beatings and force feeding by missionary
house parents, including a convicted sex offender, has opened a
lot of painful memories which many former residents had hidden
away from families and friends.

"The impacts of doing all of that has been horrendous, it's opened
really old wounds for a lot of people who had these really dark
secrets," she said.

'They allowed us to live there without rescuing'

Barbara Cummings was taken from her mother in Darwin and brought
to the home in 1948.

She was beaten regularly during 17 years there.

"I was a child of 10 or 11 and you don't beat a child with a cane
that severe, or humiliate the child, to the severity where he or
she crumbles," she said.

She and other residents view the Commonwealth, which inspected the
home, as just as responsible as its operators.

"The fact is, that they owe us.  They allowed us to live there for
all those years without any rescuing," she said.

The Department of the Prime Minister said the Commonwealth is open
to using alternative dispute mechanisms including mediation.

"The Commonwealth is committed to working with the claimants to
resolve the matter," the Department said.

"The Commonwealth acknowledges the great distress and harm that
was suffered by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians as a result of past removal practices."

The residents have gained no assurances about Australian
Indigenous Ministries' attitude to mediation.

The Church referred the ABC to its lawyers, who have not
responded.

"Australian Indigenous Ministries haven't been as interested in
the proceeding.  They've been very minimalist in their responses,"
the residents' lawyer Bill Piper said.

'Voluntary compensation scheme falls short'

The Federal Government's voluntary compensation scheme offer has
not dissuaded the former residents from their court fight.

Half of the former residents are suing for physical abuse, which
is not covered by the Federal scheme.

They view the $150,000 cap on claims, as too low in the cases of
severe sexual abuse.

"The degree of harm that our people endured, I would like to think
that we can get something better," Ms Roman said.

Ms Roman hopes if the case gains a successful outcome for the
residents that it will act as a model for other groups seeking
compensation for historic, or more recent abuse.

"What went on in Retta Dixon is still going on in foster care and
residential care.  There's a lot of lessons to be learned from our
case and it may set up a model in the future for other people who
want to take a similar route," she said.

"Children have just been so powerless within systems which they
haven't chosen themselves to opt into."

The Retta Dixon case mediation is expected to start in February.


AUSTRALIA: Baby Exposed to Williamtown RAAF Base Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a 10-month-old baby
has been exposed to significant levels of toxic chemicals around a
RAAF base near Newcastle, say his parents who are part of a class
action against the defence department.

"In nine months he's accumulated three times more [chemicals] than
I have and we attribute that to . . . hand-to-mouth contact,"
Samantha Kelly said of her son's blood tests.

She and her husband Jamie spoke to reporters outside the Federal
Court in Sydney on Nov. 22 after they decided to move from their
Williamtown home.

"Our doctor advised that if it were his children, he wouldn't live
in the zone anymore," Ms Kelly said.

They are part of a group of residents who live near the
Williamtown base suing the Commonwealth for compensation.

They say their livelihoods and property values had been severely
affected since news broke that chemicals once used in firefighting
foam had leached into ground and surface water.

Their case came before court for the first time on Nov. 22 when
the judge fixed a timetable for the legal proceedings.

Stephen Free, representing the Commonwealth, said the case
involved "complex" legal issues.

"The claim relates to matters going back to the 1970s, about what
the Commonwealth did with these substances at particular times
across some four or five decades," he said.

The residents also wanted to know what the Commonwealth knew about
the substances and Mr Free said this may involve different
agencies.

The Commonwealth would also have to consider whether any cross-
claims would be launched by it against other parties.

Outside court, the residents' lawyer Ben Allen said that 18 other
bases around Australia were being investigated in relation to
contamination.

Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group spokeswoman
Rhianna Gorfine said families such as the Kellys had been put
under immense anxiety and stress.

"We have foam gathering in drains, lying around neighbouring
properties.  People do not know where to go," she said.

"Imagine living on a property that . . . could or could not be
harming your family.  How do you live with yourself?"

The case will return to court next year.


AUSTRALIA: Defence to Sue Third Parties Over RAAF Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers for the
Department of Defence and members of a class action have come face
to face in court, where it was revealed Defence is considering
suing third parties over contamination surrounding an RAAF base
near Newcastle.

The contamination, caused by toxic firefighting foam used at
Williamtown RAAF base for nearly 40 years, spread in ground and
surface water to surrounding properties.

As a result, the value of some homes inside the contamination "red
zone" plunged and residents worried about the impact on their
health.

The matter was heard for the first time in the Federal Court on
Nov. 22, as lawyers for the Commonwealth asked for more time to
file their defence so they could examine the possibility of
counter-claims against third parties.

The development means private companies and even other government
agencies could become embroiled in the multimillion-dollar legal
battle.

But Justice Jayne Jagot rejected a request for an end of March
deadline, instead ordering that the defence be filed by February
28 and the matter return to court in April.

Oliver Gayner, a representative of IMF Bentham which is funding
the class action, said they were unaware of who might be the
target of a counter claim.

"Our case is that Defence is responsible for this damage,"
Mr Gayner said.

Jamie Kelly and his son William travelled to Sydney on Nov. 22 for
the class action.

"I am not sure who else Defence may seek to blame -- possibly 3M
[the manufacturer of the foam] -- but if you ask our class
members, it is Defence who should take responsibility for its
actions."

Justice Jagot also ordered that Defence be prepared for an-out-of-
court mediation when the case returns to court in April.

Mr Gayner said that was welcome news from the residents'
perspective.

Mr Gayner said it was too early to put a dollar figure on the
damages being pursued by residents.

"In our letter of demand we proposed an out-of-court process.
We've only gone to court because we've been forced to, and whilst
we're prepared to continue with the court process for as long as
necessary, anything that brings forward what the community wants -
-  which is the full resolution of their claims -- is a good
thing."

In a statement to the Herald, a Defence spokesperson confirmed the
department had the obligation to act as a 'model litigant' under
the Legal Services Directions Act (2005).

Such principles apply to most government agencies involved in
court action, and require that they do not cause unnecessary
delays or rely on technical defences, pay legitimate claims
without litigation and apologise where aware they have acted
wrongfully or improperly.

"Additionally, the Commonwealth will comply with any orders and
directions issued by the Federal Court in this matter," the
Defence spokesperson said.

Salt Ash resident Kim Smith said it was an "emotional" day for the
residents who travelled to Sydney.  She welcomed the "no-nonsense"
approach of the judge.

Samantha and Jamie Kelly brought their 10-month-old son William to
the case's opening day.

The couple abandoned their Williamtown property and moved to inner
Newcastle after blood tests revealed 'significant' concentrations
of the toxic foam in William's body.

Ms Kelly described the class action as a "significant first step
for our battle to hold Defence to account for poisoning our
community".

"We couldn't be prouder of the residents who attended court with
us and are fighting to save our children from this toxic mess,"
she said.


AUSTRALIA: DoD Has Until Feb. to Reply to Contamination Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Vernon, writing for ABC, reports that the Department of
Defence has been given until February to reply to a class action
put against them by the Williamtown community.

Law firm Gadens is representing more than 400 residents from Salt
Ash, Williamtown and Fullerton Cove who are seeking compensation
after their property values were affected by toxic firefighting
chemicals which leached from the Williamtown Air Force Base into
the groundwater.

Department of Defence lawyers asked the court whether they could
reply to the class action in March, saying responding to the
allegations was a "complicated matter".

They told the court this was to take into account the Christmas
break but also that the claim "raises matters going back to the
1970s about what the Commonwealth did with this substance (fire-
fighting foam)".

The court also heard of the potential for a cross claim, which the
ABC understands could be against the manufacturer of the foam.

Outside of court, Rhianna Gorfine from the Williamtown and
Surrounds Action Group said residents were disappointed Defence
were trying to push out the timeline.

"An extra four weeks for Defence to get their act together when
they've known about this for decades and they've known about what
this community is doing for a long, long time up in Williamtown,
four weeks can mean a change of a lifetime," she said.

"Imagine living on a property that you don't know could or could
not be harming your family.  How do you live with yourself, how do
you move forward?"

Justice Jayne Jagot asked Defence to reply to the class action by
the end of February, and the case is due back in court in April.

Family forced to leave home in 'red zone'

The court hearing coincided with a major development with one
Williamtown family.

Jamie and Sam Kelly, who are taking part in the class action, have
moved out of their home in the red zone into inner city Newcastle.

Mrs Kelly said they made the decision to move after test results
came back for their 10-month-old son William showing chemicals
levels above hers.

"As a mother I have gone above and beyond everything that the
Department of Defence and New South Wales Health have told me to
do in terms of limiting his exposure.  Yet I still haven't been
able to protect him from contamination," she said.

"I am looking forward to being able to live in a house and put my
son on the grass, I can put myself down on the grass and let him
play in the dirt like any child has the right to do in Australia."

Mr Kelly says the contamination has also caused financial
problems.

"We've been given advice that we are not in a position to sell our
property, that it's very unlikely to sell and even if we were we
were going to get a considerable loss on our asset," he said.

"We're having to downsize our life, we're having to make ends meet
by any way that we can.  For the types of things that any parent
would do to protect their child."

Lawyer for the residents Ben Allen has said the case could
influence how other cases play out -- residents on Queensland's
Darling Downs are preparing to pursue a class action against the
RAAF for a similar contamination.

"Defence will be looking at this for a number of bases across
Australia," he said.

"Currently there are 18 bases under investigation with another 20
being looked at after that, so this is a very serious issue for
the Department of Defence and one for them to consider."


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, disclosed that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all
purchasers of Avid Technology, Inc. common stock during the period
between August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Defendants are Avid Technology, Inc., Louis Hernandez,
Jr., and Ilan Sidi.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from November 21, 2016.  If you wish to
discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or
your rights or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please
include your phone number.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.johnsonandweaver.com. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Avid
Technology made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its business, operations, earnings, and financial
prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the
Class Period Avid knew but failed to disclose that because it had
not launched all the enterprise level features for its new NEXIS
solution product offerings, its enterprise customers were
deferring renewals and purchases.  The complaint alleges that on
November 9, 2016, after the close of trading, Avid suddenly
disclosed that both its 3Q16 bookings and revenues had come in
considerably lower than the Company had led the investment
community to expect, blaming "the transition of the storage
product line" and disclosing that "some existing enterprise
clients deferred normal upgrade and renewal decisions and new
customers postponed investments until the release of functionality
targeted to the enterprise market."  The complaint alleges that on
this news, the Company's stock price plummeted 28% on November 10,
2016, on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Avid's common stock during the Class Period.

               About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York, and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Settle Suit vs. Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its subsidiary's
agreement to settle a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Florida, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On January 5, 2016, the Bank entered into an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer
of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft fees
were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim under
Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking
to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.
As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of
$16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts
to be paid in connection with the settlement, net of amounts the
Company had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previous
periods.  The settlement was approved by the court on July 15,
2016. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the
settlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts accrued for
settlement were paid into settlement escrow funds.

BancorpSouth, Inc., is a regional financial holding company
headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.  BancorpSouth Bank, the
Company's wholly-owned banking subsidiary, has commercial banking
operations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Tennessee and Texas.  The Bank's insurance agency
subsidiary also operates an office in Illinois.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On July 31, 2014, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint was subsequently amended to add the
former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning
the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two
merger transactions within a specified time period and the
Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money
laundering requirements.  On July 10, 2015, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the claims concerning the Company's expectations about
the closing of the mergers.  Class certification was granted on
April 21, 2016, and a petition for immediate appeal of the class
certification was filed and was granted.  Class certification was
vacated and the case was remanded to the District Court for
further proceedings.  The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other
equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

At this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company as it is
uncertain whether class certification will be upheld and the exact
amount of damages (should the class remain certified) is
uncertain.  Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate
resolution or financial liability with respect to the litigation,
management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this
lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

BancorpSouth, Inc., is a regional financial holding company
headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.  BancorpSouth Bank, the
Company's wholly-owned banking subsidiary, has commercial banking
operations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Tennessee and Texas.  The Bank's insurance agency
subsidiary also operates an office in Illinois.


BASK TECHNOLOGY: Court Rejects "Ferreri" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned D'ANGELO FERRERI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BASK TECHNOLOGY, INC.
(formerly named iTOK, INC.), a corporation; and FIELD NATION, LLC,
a limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-1899-CAB-
MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengco denied the parties'
Joint Motion for FLSA Collective Action Settlement Approval, Final
Certification, and Authorization to Effectuate Settlement, and the
plaintiff's unopposed application for attorneys' fees and costs
and plaintiff incentive award.

The defendant, Bask Technology, Inc., provides remote technical
support for homes and businesses.  The specific individuals who
provided this support for Bask's customers are called Remote
Technical Advisors (RTAs).

The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleged that the plaintiff,
D'Angelo Ferreri, and all RTAs who performed work for Bask
customers were improperly classified as independent contractors
instead of employees and as a result not paid a minimum wage or
overtime.  To that end, the SAC asserted two FLSA claims and
various claims under California's labor and unfair business
practices laws on behalf of the plaintiff and one putative FLSA
collective and two putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
classes.  In addition to Bask, the complaint named as a defendant
Field Nation, LLC, one of several third-parties, referred to as
"pods," that Bask used to obtain RTAs to perform the support work
for Bask's customers.  In or around February 2016, Ferreri settled
with Field Nation for a payment of $6,000.

On October 14, 2016, Ferreri sought approval of a "Collective
Action Settlement Agreement and Release" and attorneys' fees.  The
settlement agreement purported to be between Bask and Ferreri, "on
behalf of himself and all those who opted-in to the conditionally
certified collective action by executing a Consent to Join Form."

According to the settlement agreement, Bask has agreed to pay a
gross settlement amount of $117,969.57, allocated as follows:
$39,616.75 to the settlement members for their claims; $2,000 as
an incentive award for Ferreri; and $75,000 to the plaintiff's
counsel; and $1,352.82 in costs.

Judge Bencivengco, however, found that the proposed settlement
contains numerous deficiencies that preclude a finding that the
settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute over FLSA provisions.  The judge found that the
inconsistencies among (1) the terms of the proposed settlement
agreement, (2) the identity of the opt-in collective members, (3)
the extent of the plaintiff's counsel's representation of the opt-
in members, and (4) the claims in the SAC as compared with the
claims being released in the settlement agreement, made it
impossible to determine what the settlement encompasses and what
is happening to the claims in the complaint that are not included
in the settlement, if any.  Moreover, Judge Bencivengco also found
that the agreed upon distribution of Bask's settlement payment
includes a grossly unreasonable share for the plaintiff's counsel.
The judge concluded that any one of these deficiencies precludes
approval of the settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Bencivengco's November 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/u0ptoX from Leagle.com.

D'Angelo Fererri, Plaintiff, represented by Alisa A. Martin,
Amartin Law, PC., Travis Jang-Busby, Brown Law Group & Lindsay
Christine David, San Diego County Law Offices.

Bask Technology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan K. Benard -
- bbernard@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart.


BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Haas Files Appeal in 3rd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY MARIE HAAS, Individually an on behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals, the Plaintiff - Petitioner, v.
CONRAD SZCZPANIAK; COUNTY OF BURLINGTON; BURLINGTON COUNTY JAIL;
and RONALD COX, both in his individual and Representative capacity
as Warden of the Burlington County Jail, the Plaintiff -
Respondents, and NOEL L. HILLMAN, Not Party - Nominal Respondent,
Case No. 16-4183 (3rd Cir, Nov. 25, 2016), is an appeal filed
before the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit,
from a lower court decision in Case No. 1-08-cv-01102 (D.N.J.).

Attorney for TAMMY MARIE HAAS, individually and on behalf of a
Class of Similarly Situated Individuals is:

          Susan C. Lask, Esq.
          244 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 358 5762

Attorneys for CONRAD SZCZPANIAK are:

          Lauren Plevinsky, Esq.
          BILLET & ASSOCIATES
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2803
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 7500

               - and -

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573

Attorneys for COUNTY OF BURLINGTON; BURLINGTON COUNTY JAIL; and
RONALD COX, both in his individual and Representative capacity as
Warden of the Burlington County Jail are:

          Michelle L. Corea, Esq.
          Laura Danks, Esq.
          CAPEHART SCATCHARD
          8000 Midlantic Drive
          Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S
          P.O. Box 5016
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054


C&J ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of Miami Trust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust, et al.'s appeal from the dismissal of their
shareholder litigation remains pending, C&J Energy Services Ltd.
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and
Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination of
Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production services
business (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became a
subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the "Merger"). The
resulting combined company is currently led by the former
management team of Legacy C&J.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors,
and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of
Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July
30, 2014 (the "Shareholder Litigation"). Plaintiff in the
Shareholder Litigation generally alleges that the board of
directors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care, good faith, candor and independence by allegedly approving
the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair
process. Plaintiff alleges that the Legacy C&J board directors, or
certain of them (i) failed to fully inform themselves of the
market value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value and obtain the best
price reasonably available for Legacy C&J, (ii) acted in bad faith
and for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourage
other strategic alternatives and (iv) put their personal interests
ahead of the interests of Legacy C&J shareholders. The Shareholder
Litigation further alleges that Legacy C&J, Nabors and New C&J
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Legacy C&J board of directors.

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to the
allegations described above, that (i) the special committee of the
Legacy C&J board of directors and its advisors improperly
conducted the court-ordered solicitation that the Delaware Supreme
Court vacated and (ii) the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omits
allegedly material information concerning the Merger and court-
ordered solicitation process. The Shareholder Litigation asserts,
in addition to the claims described above, claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against the special committee of the Legacy C&J board of
directors, its financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain
employees of Legacy C&J. Following the death of Josh Comstock, our
founder and former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Plaintiff substituted the executor of Mr.
Comstock's estate in place of Mr. Comstock as a defendant in the
Shareholder Litigation.

The defendants in the Shareholder Litigation filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. On August 24, 2016, the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the Shareholder Litigation in its entirety with
prejudice. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, appealing the dismissal of
the Shareholder Litigation. Plaintiffs' appeal is pending.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this or any
other lawsuit that might be filed, nor can it predict the amount
of time and expense that will be required to resolve the
Shareholder Litigation.  The Company believes the Shareholder
Litigation is without merit and it intends to defend against it
vigorously.

C&J Energy Services Ltd. provides well construction, well
completions, well support and other complementary oilfield
services to oil and gas exploration and production companies
primarily in North America.  As one of the largest completion and
production services companies in North America, C&J offers a full,
vertically integrated suite of services involved in the entire
life cycle of the well, including hydraulic fracturing, cased-hole
wireline, coiled tubing, cementing, rig services, fluids
management services and other special well site services.


CABELL, WV: Preliminary Injunction Granted in "Mullins" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert C. Chambers granted preliminary injunction in the
case captioned ALLISON MULLINS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KAREN COLE, in her
official capacity as Clerk of Cabell County, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 3:16-9918 (S.D. W.Va.).

In West Virginia, the Secretary of State has established a state-
wide online voter registration system pursuant to her statutory
authority.  Of the 55 counties in West Virginia, all but Cabell
County allow residents to register using the online system.  In
Cabell County, when a resident attempts to register through the
online system, Karen Cole, in her official capacity as Clerk of
Cabell County, West Virginia, sends the applicant a letter with a
paper registration application to complete.

The filing deadline for registering to vote in West Virginia for
the 2016 general election was October 18.  Allison Mullins, a
resident of Cabell County, attempted to register using the online
system on October 16, two days prior to the deadline.  Despite
completing the online registration, Mullins was not registered to
vote in Cabell County pursuant to Cole's policy.

On October 20, 2016, Mullins filed a Verified Class Action
Complaint against Cole, in her official capacity as Clerk of
Cabell County, West Virginia, to enjoin Cole from refusing to
process the online applications and to issue a mandamus directing
her to process the online voter registration applications and
changes to voter registrations for all those who are otherwise
qualified.

With her Complaint, Mullins filed an Emergency Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order, and a Motion for Class Certification.
The Court, however, converted the action into one for preliminary
injunction.

Judge Chambers had no difficulty finding Cole's policy results in
an unconstitutional burden on the right of Cabell County voters to
vote.  The judge found that, without doubt, the would-be voters of
Cabell County who attempted to register online face a significant
injury if they fail to complete the additional and unnecessary
steps required by Cole.

Accordingly, Judge Chambers found that Mullins has made a clear
showing that:

     (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits;

     (2) without immediate Court intervention, there is likely to
         be irreparable harm to would-be voters who attempted to
         register online but who did not complete a paper
         application as they would be prevented from voting in
         the general election;

     (3) the balance of equities tips in her favor; and

     (4) an injunction is in the public interest as it protects
         the fundamental right to vote.

A full-text copy of Judge Chambers' November 21, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/xu6sDj from
Leagle.com.

Allison Mullins, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Majestro,
POWELL & MAJESTRO, Dale E. Ho, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, INC., pro hac vice, Jamie Lynn Crofts, ACLU OF WEST
VIRGINIA FOUNDATION & Sean J. Young, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION, INC., pro hac vice.

Karen Cole, Defendant, represented by Jacob D. Layne --
jlayne@pffwv.com -- PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE & Wendy E.
Greve -- wgreve@pffwv.com -- PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE.


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Court Tosses "Koskie" Suit Over CEC Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit commenced by
Nicholas Koskie arising from the proposed merger of Caesars
Acquisition Company and Caesars Entertainment Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

On December 21, 2014, the Company and CEC entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which, among other things, CAC will merge with and into CEC, with
CEC as the surviving company (the "Proposed Merger").

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing
their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties
proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts
exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their
fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed
Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and
(c) act independently to protect the interests of the
shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all
damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the
putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to
award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It is
unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Merger.

On October 14, 2016, the Nevada Lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice by the court for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to local
rule, the case may be reinstated at the plaintiff's written
request, provided such request is received no later than Nov. 14,
2016.

CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without merit
and will defend themselves vigorously.

The Company says it cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of
this matter or of the range of reasonably possible losses should
this matter ultimately be resolved against the Company due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and the stage of the related
litigation.

Caesars Acquisition Company, a Delaware corporation, was formed on
February 25, 2013, to make an equity investment in Caesars Growth
Partners, LLC, a joint venture between CAC and subsidiaries of
Caesars Entertainment Corporation.  CAC directly owns 100% of the
voting membership units of CGP LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company.


CAESARS GROWTH: Court Stays Proceedings in Noteholders Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court has granted Caesars Entertainment Operating
Company, Inc.'s motion for a stay of the proceedings in the
lawsuit initiated by noteholders, according to Caesars Growth
Properties Holdings, LLC's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. Senior Unsecured
Notes due 2016 and 2017 filed suit in federal district court in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014
Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the
one hand) and certain other holders of the CEOC Senior Unsecured
Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the
Senior Unsecured Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and
monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, other holders of CEOC Senior
Unsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all
holders of these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a
substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same
defendants, relating to the same transactions. Both lawsuits (the
"Senior Unsecured Lawsuits") were assigned to the same judge. The
claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied a motion to
dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC. The parties have
completed fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claims
against CEC.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits
moved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015,
those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in the
action brought on behalf of holders of CEOC's 6.50% Senior
Unsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing has
been completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter
retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these
lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule,
and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment which
remain pending.

On October 5, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted CEOC's motion for
a stay of these proceedings (and others). The stay will remain in
effect until the earlier of (a) the first omnibus hearing after
the Bankruptcy Court issues its decision confirming or denying
confirmation of the CEOC reorganization plan, (b) the termination
of the Second Lien RSA or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy
Court. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to these lawsuits.

Caesars Growth Properties Holdings, LLC, is an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Caesars Growth Partners, LLC ("CGP LLC"),
which is a joint venture between Caesars Acquisition Company
("CAC"), a Delaware corporation, and Caesars Entertainment
Corporation ("CEC").  CGPH's properties include The Cromwell, The
LINQ Hotel & Casino, Bally's Las Vegas and Harrah's New Orleans
(the "May 2014 Acquisitions"), and Planet Hollywood Resort and
Casino.


CAESARS GROWTH: "Koskie" Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder class action filed by Nicholas Koskie has been
dismissed without prejudice, Caesars Growth Properties Holdings,
LLC said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against Caesars Acquisition Company ("CAC"), Caesars
Entertainment Corporation ("CEC") and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the Proposed Merger between CAC and CEC
announced on December 22, 2014 (the "Proposed Merger"),
specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with
bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions,
(b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors'
personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such
conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to
protect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CAC
Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by
the plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed
Merger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs and
attorneys' fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also
seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger.

On October 14, 2016, the Nevada Lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice by the court for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to local
rule, the case may be reinstated at the plaintiff's written
request, provided such request is received no later than Nov. 14,
2016. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without
merit and will defend themselves vigorously.

The Company says it cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of
this matter or of the range of reasonably possible losses should
this matter ultimately be resolved against the Company due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and the stage of the related
litigation.

Caesars Growth Properties Holdings, LLC, is an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Caesars Growth Partners, LLC ("CGP LLC"),
which is a joint venture between Caesars Acquisition Company
("CAC"), a Delaware corporation, and Caesars Entertainment
Corporation ("CEC").  CGPH's properties include The Cromwell, The
LINQ Hotel & Casino, Bally's Las Vegas and Harrah's New Orleans
(the "May 2014 Acquisitions"), and Planet Hollywood Resort and
Casino.


CEMPRA INC: Faces Pasqual Securities Suit Over Misleading Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHERI PASQUAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CEMPRA, INC., PRABHAVATHI FERNANDES,
MARK W. HAHN and DAVID W. OLDACH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01356 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Cempra and certain of
its officers who made materially false and misleading statements
in press releases and filings with the Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC).

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements
to the investing public. Cempra's stock trading at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $32.81
per share. On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a report analyzing Cempra's clinical
development program for solithromycin to treat CABP, which
highlighted a significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity and
drug-induced liver injury. As a result of this news, the price of
Cempra stock dropped $11.35 per share to close
at $7.30 per share on November 2, 2016, a one-day decline of
nearly 61% on volume of 20.7 million shares. Due to Defendants'
false and misleading statements, Cempra common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. After the
above revelations seeped into the market, the price of the
Company's common stock dropped nearly 78% from its Class Period
high, causing economic harm and damages to class members.

Cempra is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
antibiotics for the treatment of infectious diseases. Cempra's
lead product, solithromycin (CEM-101), is being
developed in oral capsule, intravenous (IV) and suspension
formulations for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial
pneumonia (CABP), as well as for the treatment of gonorrhea and
for other indications.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the Total Bond Market
Fund Litigation remains pending in the U.S. Court Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, according to The Charles Schwab Corporation's Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings.

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and
in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the
court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed
to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in wealth management,
securities brokerage, banking, money management, custody, and
financial advisory services. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab)
is a securities broker-dealer with over 330 domestic branch
offices in 46 states, as well as a branch in each of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and London, England. In addition,
Schwab serves clients in Hong Kong through one of CSC's
subsidiaries. Other subsidiaries include Charles Schwab Bank
(Schwab Bank), a federal savings bank, and Charles Schwab
Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment advisor for
Schwab's proprietary mutual funds, which are referred to as the
Schwab Funds(R), and for Schwab's exchange-traded funds (ETFs),
which are referred to as the Schwab ETFs(TM).


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Confidential Mediation Ongoing in Water Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The confidential mediation process in the drinking water
litigation is ongoing and expected to continue as the litigation
proceeds, The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Effective prior to the opening of trading on the New York Stock
Exchange on July 1, 2015, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
completed the previously announced separation of the businesses
comprising DuPont's Performance Chemicals reporting segment, and
certain other assets and liabilities, into Chemours, a separate
and distinct public company.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid
and its salts, including the ammonium salt ("PFOA") in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a
series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by
an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel).
The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found
probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including
preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up
to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible
class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated
with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012,
Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account to
fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.
The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and
the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account. As of September 30, 2016, less than $1 million has been
disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts and private well users. At
separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is
included in the accrual amounts recorded as of September 30, 2016.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2016 and
December 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed
in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an
increase of approximately 600 over year end 2014. These lawsuits
are consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio
federal court. Based on the information currently available to the
Company, the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury
claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from
exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 30 lawsuits alleging
wrongful death.

Although the majority of the plaintiffs in the MDL allege multiple
diseases, the table below approximates the number of plaintiffs in
each of the six probable link disease categories.

                                  Approximate No.
     Alleged Injury               of Plaintiffs
     --------------               -------------
     Kidney cancer                      200
     Testicular cancer                   70
     Ulcerative colitis                 300
     Preeclampsia                       200
     Thyroid disease                  1,430
     High cholesterol                 1,340

In the third quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were
selected for individual bellwether trials.

All six bellwether cases in the MDL have now been tried, resolved,
appealed or otherwise addressed. Two bellwether cases have been
tried. The first case (Bartlett v. DuPont / kidney cancer) was
tried to a verdict in October 2015. The jury found in favor of the
plaintiff, awarding $1.1 million in damages for negligence and
$0.5 million for emotional distress. The jury found that DuPont's
conduct did not warrant punitive damages. A second case (Freeman
v. DuPont / testicular cancer) was tried to verdict in July 2016.
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff awarding $5.1 million in
compensatory damages and $0.5 million in punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's counsel alleges that they are
entitled to at least $6.9 million in attorneys' fees and costs for
the Freeman trial. The Court will make a determination after post-
trial submissions by the parties. The Court's determination will
be subject to appeal. Court rulings made before and during both
trials resulted in several significant grounds for appeal and an
appeal to the Sixth Circuit has been filed for the first case.
This appeal is scheduled for oral arguments on December 9, 2016.
The Company, through DuPont, is pursuing post-trial motions and
appeals for the second case.

Three bellwether PFOA cases were settled in 2016 as trial
approached. These cases (Wolf v. DuPont/ulcerative colitis, Dowdy
v. DuPont/kidney cancer, Baker v. DuPont/kidney cancer) were
settled for amounts well below the incremental cost of preparing
for trials. To date, the settlements have been individually and in
aggregate immaterial to the Company. The final case (Pugh v.
DuPont/ulcerative colitis) was removed from the bellwethers when
it was determined that the plaintiff did not suffer from the
alleged disease.

The trial court announced that, starting in May 2017, 40
individual plaintiff trials will be scheduled for a 12-month
period. Following the conclusion of the six bellwether cases, on
July 19, 2016, the court moved two of the 40 matters (Vigneron v.
DuPont/testicular cancer and Moody v. DuPont/testicular cancer)
forward and set the cases for trial on November 14, 2016 and
January 17, 2017, respectively. The trial court's multi-year plan
pertains only to the approximately 270 cases claiming cancer.
Based on the current plan, the remaining cases, comprising
approximately 93% of the docket, will remain inactive.

A confidential mediation process that the court established early
in this MDL is ongoing and expected to continue as the litigation
proceeds.

Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously. No other claims have been
settled or resolved during the periods presented. DuPont is the
named defendant in each of these cases and is directly liable for
any judgment. If DuPont were to claim that it is entitled to
indemnification from Chemours as to some or all of any judgment,
Chemours retains its defenses to such claims.

The Chemours Company delivers customized solutions with a wide
range of industrial and specialty chemical products for markets
including plastics and coatings, refrigeration and air
conditioning, general industrial, mining and oil refining.
Principal products include titanium dioxide ("TiO2"),
refrigerants, industrial fluoropolymer resins and sodium cyanide.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit by Residents of U.S. Smelter Area
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company is facing a putative class action lawsuit
filed by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead
Refinery Inc. multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

Effective prior to the opening of trading on the New York Stock
Exchange on July 1, 2015, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
completed the previously announced separation of the businesses
comprising DuPont's Performance Chemicals reporting segment, and
certain other assets and liabilities, into Chemours, a separate
and distinct public company.

In October 2016, a putative class action was filed against
Chemours by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead
Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana,
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act ("CERCLA") with trespass and negligence causes of
action seeking reimbursement for temporary housing, relocation,
loss of use and other costs and damages. DuPont has requested that
Chemours defend and indemnify it on this matter and a second
matter alleging claims including personal injury to 13 area
residents. Management believes a loss is reasonably possible but
not estimable at this time.

At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site,
which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund
area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at
the Superfund site.

The Chemours Company delivers customized solutions with a wide
range of industrial and specialty chemical products for markets
including plastics and coatings, refrigeration and air
conditioning, general industrial, mining and oil refining.
Principal products include titanium dioxide ("TiO2"),
refrigerants, industrial fluoropolymer resins and sodium cyanide.


CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING: Bid to Exclude Evidence Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS and JUDES PETIT-FRERE, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING, LLC, FLORIDA GOLD CITRUS, INC., JACK GREEN,
JR., HOWARD LEASING, INC., and HOWARD LEASING III, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:13-cv-3084-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla.), Judge James
S. Moody, Jr. granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants'
second renewed motion in limine to exclude certain evidence.

Shelene Jean-Louis and Judes Petit-Frere brought a class action on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the
defendants for race, color, and national origin discrimination in
their employment under 42 U.S.C. section 1981, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e, et
seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act, as amended, 760.01 --
760.11, Fla. Stat. (2013).

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that they are
black/Haitian/Afro-Haitian/African American recruited by the
defendants to pick blueberries during the March 2012 season.  The
plaintiffs' crew leader was Alteric Jean-Charles.  The plaintiffs
alleged, however, that they were never provided any work when they
reported to the defendants from about March 19, 2012 until about
March 27, 2012, and that the defendants' failure to provide them
with any work constituted unlawful race, color, and national
origin discrimination.

The defendants moved to exclude certain evidence from being
presented at the trial.

The defendants requested that the Court exclude particular
testimony from non-party witness Salvador Grajeda, another crew
leader whose crew was partially comprised of Haitian workers.  The
defendants argued that Grajeda's deposition testimony revealed
that he does not have personal knowledge about who were hired by
the defendant, Jack Green, Jr.  The defendants also contend that
Grajeda relies on inadmissible hearsay and that his testimony is
otherwise highly prejudicial.

Judge Moody found that the defendants' arguments are without merit
for several reasons.  The judge held that the plaintiffs should be
provided the opportunity to lay the proper foundation and that
without testimony and evidence to provide factual context, a
ruling on potential hearsay issues would be premature.  The judge
also found that the defendants' argument that Grajeda's testimony
is highly prejudicial is too broad.  Thus, the judge denied the
defendants' motion on these issues without prejudice to defendants
renewing their objections at trial.

The defendants also sought to exclude Jean-Charles' testimony and
the testimony of Michel Desulme and Jean Claude Joseph that they
saw "Spanish People," "Mexicans," or "Spanish" individuals
standing in line at the trailer allegedly filling out applications
after Green told Jean-Charles that there was no work for his crew,
arguing that Jean-Charles, Desulme and Joseph lack personal
knowledge as to "why people were standing in line in front of the
trailer . . ."

Judge Moody found this argument to be without merit, holding that
Jean-Charles, Desulme, and Joseph can certainly testify about what
they personally observed.

The defendants sought to exclude inadmissible hearsay testimony
related to statements people heard from others that Green
preferred to hire Mexican/Spanish workers and that there was no
work for Haitians.

Again, Judge Moody denied the defendants' motion on these issues
without prejudice, although the defendants may assert these
objections at trial.

Plaintiff Judes Petit-Frere (who passed away during the pendency
of this action) testified that there was a group of Mexican
workers who were issued ID cards from the defendants that had the
same crew number as the members of Jean-Charles' crew, and these
Mexican workers went to work each day while the class members were
told there was no work.  The defendants argued that this testimony
is inadmissible because Petit-Frere lacks personal knowledge about
these workers, their ID cards, and whether they actually performed
any work at Clear Springs.

Judge Moody concluded that Petit-Frere's testimony is admissible
to the extent that it is about what he personally saw or observed.

The defendants anticipated that the plaintiffs will offer into
evidence testimony or documents to show that the defendants did
not offer application forms in Creole, and that the plaintiffs may
use this evidence to show the defendants' discrimination against
Haitians.  The defendants argued that this evidence is
inadmissible because it is irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and has
no probative value.

Judge Moody agreed that this evidence is not relevant to the
claims in the case and granted the defendants' motion on this
issue.

The defendants also anticipated that the plaintiffs will offer
into testimony a letter Clear Springs' counsel sent to the EEOC
during the course of its investigation of the charges filed by the
plaintiffs.  The defendants argued that this anticipated evidence
is irrelevant, lacks foundation, is speculative, and is highly
prejudicial.

Judge Moody, however, concluded that this evidence is relevant: it
shows that, during the relevant time, the defendants employed
almost exclusively Latinos, which goes to the heart of the
plaintiffs' argument that the defendants preferred Hispanic
workers to Haitians.

The defendants also sought to exclude as "highly prejudicial"
evidence that Judes Petit-Frere, who was a class representative,
and other class members were killed in a bus accident in March of
2015.

Judge Moody concluded that this evidence is not relevant to any
issues in the case and granted the defendants' motion on this
issue.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs should be precluded from
introducing evidence of punitive damages because the plaintiffs
have not presented any evidence to show malice or reckless
indifference.

Judge Moody found this argument is inappropriate on a motion for
limine, and denied the defendants' motion on this issue.

Lastly, the defendants argued that the Court should preclude the
plaintiffs from offering any expert, document, or witness not
properly and timely disclosed prior to the commencement of trial.
The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs should be precluded
from referencing or mentioning any failure on the defendants' part
to call a witness available to all parties.

Judge Moody found that these issues were still premature and were
thus denied.  Moreover, the judge found that the request about
references to witnesses not called is peculiar to the extent that
the defendants have made no attempt to show how such a reference
would prejudice them.  The motion on this issue was similarly
denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Moody's November 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/S1PSAO from Leagle.com.

Shelene Jean-Louis, Judes Petit-Frere, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alexis Marie Barkis, Weldon & Rothman, PL, Bradley Paul Rothman --
brothman@weldonrothman.com -- Weldon & Rothman, PL, Michelle E.
Nadeau -- mdadeau@ksbclaw.com -- Kwall, Showers, Barack & Chilson,
P.A. & Ryan D. Barack -- rbarack@ksbclaw.com -- Kwall, Showers,
Barack & Chilson, P.A..

Clear Springs Farming, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy Michele
Darby -- adarby@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Reese, LLP, John W.
Campbell -- jcampbell@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith,
LLP, Jose I. Leon -- jleon@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP &
James Morgan Craig -- jcraig@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks &
Smith, LLP.

Florida Gold Citrus, Inc., Jack Green, Jr., Defendants,
represented by Amanda G. Chafin -- amanda.chafin@bipc.com --
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, John W. Campbell, Constangy,
Brooks & Smith, LLP, Kimble Clark Bouchillon -- kc@saunders-
law.com -- Saunders Law Group & James Morgan Craig, Constangy,
Brooks & Smith, LLP.

Cary R. Singletary, Mediator, represented by Cary R. Singletary --
carysingletary@aol.com -- Cary R. Singletary, PA.Shook Hardy &
Bacon.


COLONY STARWOOD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss South Miami Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colony Starwood Homes awaits ruling on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss a shareholder lawsuit filed by South Miami Pension Plan in
Maryland, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On September 21, 2015, the Company and Colony American Homes,
Inc., -- the Company's predecessor for accounting purposes --
announced the signing of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as
of September 21, 2015, among the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries and CAH and certain of its subsidiaries and certain
investors in CAH (the "Merger Agreement"), to combine the two
companies in a stock-for-stock transaction.  In connection with
the transaction, the Company internalized SWAY Management LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Company's former external
manager ("the Manager").  The Merger and the Internalization were
completed on January 5, 2016.

On October 30, 2015, a putative class action was filed by one of
the Company's purported shareholders ("Plaintiff") against the
Company, its trustees, the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC, Starwood
Capital Group and CAH ("Defendants") challenging the Merger and
the Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami Pension
Plan v. Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of the
Company's trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the Merger and the Internalization, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint also
challenged the adequacy of the public disclosures made in
connection with the Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiff
sought, among other relief, an injunction preventing the Company's
shareholders from voting on the Internalization or the Merger,
rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, and damages, including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction preventing the Company's shareholders from
voting on whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization.
On December 16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the
Court denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff
thereafter notified the Defendants that it intended to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on
February 3, 2016, asserting substantially similar claims and
seeking substantially similar relief as in its earlier complaint.
In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 21, 2016, on which the Court held a hearing
June 1, 2016.

The Company believes that this action has no merit and intends to
defend vigorously against it.

Colony Starwood Homes, formerly known as Starwood Waypoint
Residential Trust is a Maryland real estate investment trust.  The
Company is an internally managed Maryland REIT and commenced
operations in March 2012 primarily to acquire, renovate, lease and
manage residential assets in select markets throughout the United
States.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: "Warren" Suit Remains Stayed in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lawsuit
initiated by Cassandra Warren, et al., remains stayed.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint
against Commerce Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri.  The case is Cassandra Warren, et al. v. Commerce Bank
(Case No. 1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges
violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the
Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-
sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The class was
certified and consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may
have been similarly affected. The case has been stayed pending the
final outcome of a similar case in which a ruling has been made in
favor of the bank defendant.

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

The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any
appeals in the similar case have run their course.  The Company
believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself
vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be
determined with certainty at this time.

Commerce Bancshares, Inc., provides financial services.


CYNOSURE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Ficken" Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc., awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint filed by Susan Lovell Ficken, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On May 2, 2016, Susan Lovell Ficken and certain
other named plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putative
class, filed a complaint against us in Missouri state court
seeking monetary and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs
and attorneys' fees. The matter was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri - Central Division on
June 3, 2016. The amended complaint, filed on June 27, 2016,
alleges that the SmartLipo laser was unlawfully marketed by us and
third parties, giving rise to alleged violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act. It seeks to assert claims on behalf
of all individuals who purchased a SmartLipo procedure in
Missouri."

"On July 11, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the entire action.
In response, on September 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint with the same material allegations but that
added a named plaintiff in an attempt to defeat our statute of
limitations defense. We filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on September 16, 2016. That motion has been
fully briefed, and we are awaiting the Court's ruling. In the
interim, we are engaged in discovery. In accordance with the
requirements imposed upon us by Western District of Missouri's
mandatory mediation and assessment program, we are required to
participate in mediation by February 28, 2017."

The Company believes the claims are without merit, and that it has
meritorious defenses.

Cynosure, Inc., develops, manufactures, and markets aesthetic
treatment systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and
other medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and benign
pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored tattoos, revitalize the
skin, reduce fat through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear
nails infected by toe fungus, ablate sweat glands and improve
women's health.  The Company also markets radiofrequency, or RF,
energy-sourced medical devices for precision surgical applications
such as facial plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose,
and throat procedures, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial
surgery, podiatry and proctology.


CYNOSURE INC: Explores Possible Class Settlement With ARcare
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that it has agreed to explore
with ARcare, Inc., a possible class settlement of the latter's
lawsuit .

On July 27, 2016, ARcare, Inc., individually and as putative
representative of a purported nationwide class, filed a complaint
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The plaintiff alleges that we violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, by sending fax
advertisements that did not comply with statutory and Federal
Communications Commission, or FCC, requirements that senders
provide recipients with certain information about how to opt out
from receiving faxed advertisements in the future, and by sending
unsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint seeks damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf
of a purported class of all recipients of purported fax
advertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive an
adequate opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for statutory damages
of $500 per violation and gives courts the discretion to increase
that amount up to $1,500 for knowing and willful violations.

On September 30, 2016, the Company answered the complaint and
denied liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent a
demand letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damages
under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A Section 9, and on
October 7, 2016, the Company responded denying any liability under
Chapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages under
Chapter 93A on an individual basis. To date, the plaintiff has not
moved to amend the complaint to assert a claim under Chapter 93A.

The Company and the plaintiff have agreed to explore a possible
class settlement of the litigation in a mediation to be held in
late 2016, and on October 12, 2016, the court stayed the case
until January 11, 2017, to allow the parties to mediate without
litigation.

Based on preliminary estimates, the Company believes the aggregate
number of faxes sent in the four years prior to the lawsuit to be
approximately 835,000.

The Company says it not recorded a liability in respect of this
matter, and at this time the Company cannot estimate the possible
loss or range of losses that it may incur in respect of this
matter.  The Company explains that it is unable to make such an
estimate because, among other reasons, the proceedings are at an
early stage and other reported TCPA lawsuits have resulted in a
broad range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own
facts and circumstances. In addition, the Company believes that
the outcome of litigation currently pending before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, et
al. v. FCC) may have a significant impact on the outcome of this
matter. In that case, the outcome of which the Company cannot
predict, other companies are challenging the validity of an FCC
regulation that requires certain opt out information to be
included in fax promotions sent to recipients who had given
permission to receive them. The Company has has also applied to
the FCC for a retroactive waiver from that requirement, which if
approved, would exempt us from that requirement through April 30,
2015. The FCC's ability to issue such waivers is also before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the Bais Yaakov
matter, and in any event there can be no assurance that the
Company's application will be granted.

Cynosure, Inc., develops, manufactures, and markets aesthetic
treatment systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and
other medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and benign
pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored tattoos, revitalize the
skin, reduce fat through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear
nails infected by toe fungus, ablate sweat glands and improve
women's health.  The Company also markets radiofrequency, or RF,
energy-sourced medical devices for precision surgical applications
such as facial plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose,
and throat procedures, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial
surgery, podiatry and proctology.


CYNOSURE INC: Wins Partial Judgment in Certain Claim in LDGP Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court granted Cynosure, Inc.'s motion for partial judgment in
connection with the negligent misrepresentation count in the
lawsuit filed by LDGP, LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that

The Company said, "On June 26, 2015, a plaintiff, LDGP, LLC d/b/a
Hartsough Dermatology, individually and on behalf of a putative
class, filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois - Western Division seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2015,
which added three new plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleges
that we falsely represented that the PicoSure laser removes and
eliminates tattoos and difficult colors, and alleges violations of
several state consumer fraud laws, breach of warranty, common law
fraud and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks to assert claims
on behalf of all entities in the United States who purchased a
PicoSure laser, except those located in Louisiana."

"On December 7, 2015, we filed our answer and motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings regarding several counts in the amended
complaint. On August 15, 2016, the court granted our motion in
connection with the negligent misrepresentation count, and denied
it with respect to the breach of contact claim."

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and that
the Company has meritorious defenses.

Cynosure, Inc., develops, manufactures, and markets aesthetic
treatment systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and
other medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and benign
pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored tattoos, revitalize the
skin, reduce fat through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear
nails infected by toe fungus, ablate sweat glands and improve
women's health.  The Company also markets radiofrequency, or RF,
energy-sourced medical devices for precision surgical applications
such as facial plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose,
and throat procedures, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial
surgery, podiatry and proctology.


DEAN FOODS: Agrees to the Dismissal of Indirect Purchasers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties agreed to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit filed
by indirect purchasers in Tennessee, Dean Foods Company said in
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect
purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect
purchaser action"). This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the
same plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint on January 17,
2013. The allegations in this complaint were similar to those in
both the retailer action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action,
but involved only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the district
court granted in part and denied in part that motion, dismissing
the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed its answer
to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. On March 16, 2016,
the court granted a joint motion to stay the indirect purchaser
action pending the Sixth Circuit's decision on the pending class
certification review petition in the retailer action.

On July 11, 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the
indirect purchaser action; the stipulation does not address
whether the right of plaintiffs to file a new complaint has been
waived or lost.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible for us to
predict the outcome of this matter.

Dean Foods Company is a food and beverage company and the largest
processor and direct-to-store distributor of milk and other dairy
and dairy case products in the United States.  The Company
processes and distributes fluid milk and other dairy products,
including ice cream, ice cream mix and cultured products, which
are marketed under more than 50 local and regional dairy brands
and a wide array of private labels.


DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Retailers Suit Set for Trial on March 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit commenced by retailers in
Tennessee is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017,
according to Dean Foods Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors on
August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that the
Company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the
milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United
States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail
outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the
defendants' conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by
direct milk purchasers. In March 2012, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of defendants, including the Company, as
to all counts then remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decision, and in January 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary
judgment as to one of the five original counts in the Tennessee
retailer action. Following the Sixth Circuit's denial of our
request to reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned the
Supreme Court of the United States for review. On November 17,
2014, the Supreme Court denied our petition and the case returned
to the district court.

On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment
to defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On Jan. 25,
2016, the district court denied summary judgment in other respects
and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February
8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the
district court's order denying class certification. That petition
was denied on June 14, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the district court
issued an order holding that the case will be judged under an
antitrust legal doctrine known as the rule of reason.

The case is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible for us to
predict the outcome of the matter.

Dean Foods Company is a food and beverage company and the largest
processor and direct-to-store distributor of milk and other dairy
and dairy case products in the United States.  The Company
processes and distributes fluid milk and other dairy products,
including ice cream, ice cream mix and cultured products, which
are marketed under more than 50 local and regional dairy brands
and a wide array of private labels.


DNC SERVICES: Former Organizer Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for PennRecord, reports that an organizer
formerly employed by a political party has filed a class action
lawsuit alleging she and others were not paid overtime wages.

Bethany Katz filed a complaint on behalf of those similarly
situated on Nov. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against DNC Services Corp., doing
business as Democratic National Committee, and Pennsylvania
Democratic Committee alleging violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
80 to 90 hours per week and was classified as being exempt from
receiving overtime wages.  The plaintiff holds DNC Services Corp.
and Pennsylvania Democratic Committee responsible because the
defendants allegedly failed to pay the plaintiff any overtime
premiums at a rate of time-and-one-half for working more than 40
hours per week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensate,
reimburse, pay all unpaid wages and benefits, liquidated damages,
court costs and any further relief the court grants.  She is
represented by Justin L. Swidler and Richard S. Swartz of Swartz
Swidler LLC in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:16-cv-05800-CDJ


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announced the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Dynavax Technologies Corporation
("Dynavax" or the "Company") concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws between March 10, 2014 and November 11,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm in advance of the
January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, Dynavax made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the phase 3 HBV-23
trial for the Company's lead vaccine product HEPLISAV-B was not
designed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's concerns and issues; that the Company failed to
provide sufficient information to the FDA in its Revised Biologics
License Application for the drug; that Dynavax's resources will
not be sufficient for the Company to advance the HEPLISAV-B
program on its own; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements and statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On November 14, 2016, Dynavax announced that it received a
Complete Response Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration requesting additional information on the Company's
HEPLISAV-B product in connection with its Biologics License
Application.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian
Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to
upholding the rights of shareholder.


EAGLE ROAD: Nearly 300 Earthquake Damage Claims Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that nearly 300 damage claims have
been submitted since Oklahoma's largest earthquake, but only four
of those claims have been paid, an analysis shows.

Oklahoma Insurance Department data show that the approved claims
for the Sept. 3 earthquake, which was magnitude 5.8 and centered
near Pawnee, totaled $24,000, with the largest single payout at
around $21,000, the Tulsa World reported.

The analysis showed that claims from the Pawnee earthquake were
about equal to the nearly 340 filed after a magnitude 5.7
earthquake struck near the town of Prague in 2011.  Insurance data
show about one-third of claims made after that quake were
approved.

Oklahoma has had thousands of earthquakes in recent years, with
nearly all traced to underground wastewater disposal from oil and
natural gas operations.  Some scientists say that the high-
pressure injection of massive amounts of chemical-laced wastewater
deep in the earth induces the quakes.  Regulators have asked oil
and gas producers to either close injection wells or reduce the
volume of fluids they inject.

Pawnee residents filed a class-action lawsuit in district court
against energy companies, and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma filed
a federal lawsuit seeking drilling permits for oil and natural gas
wells on tribal land to be voided.

Insurance policies used to exclude earthquakes triggered by
man-made activities, but with the uptick of temblors in Oklahoma
in recent years, insurers offer policies covering man-made and
natural quakes.

"They're one and the same now; they are definitely covered,"
Insurance Commissioner John Doak said.  "Over 90 percent of the
market is going to cover earthquakes no matter if they're man-made
or natural."

A 2015 study by the U.S. Geological Survey suggested that
Oklahoma's industrial activities, such as natural gas and oil
production, have caused the sharp rise in earthquakes in the past
100 years.

The insurance department doesn't have data available on the
magnitude 5.0 temblor that struck on Nov. 6 near Cushing, damaging
dozens of buildings in a town that's home to one of the world's
key oil hubs.


EMPIRE DISTRICT: Agrees to Present Suit Settlement to Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Empire District Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that parties to
the Memorandum of Understanding resolving a merger-lawsuit have
agreed to finalize and execute a stipulation of settlement and to
present the settlement for Court approval.

On February 9, 2016, Empire entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Liberty Utilities (Central)
Co., a Delaware corporation (Liberty Central), and Liberty Sub
Corp., a Kansas corporation (Merger Sub), providing for the merger
of Merger Sub with and into Empire, with Empire surviving the
Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty Central (the
Merger).

On March 24, 2016, a purported shareholder of Empire filed a
complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the District Court
for the 3rd Judicial District, in Shawnee County, Kansas. The
shareholder filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Empire's Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement by, among
other things, conducting an inadequate sales process and failing
to obtain adequate consideration, having an interest in completing
the Merger, and failing to make adequate disclosures in the proxy
statement. The complaint seeks various relief, including an
injunction against the Merger. The complaint also alleges that
Empire, APUC, Liberty Central and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches.

On June 7, 2016, following arm's length negotiations, Empire and
other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
providing for the settlement, subject to court approval, of all
claims asserted in the complaint against all defendants. In
connection with the MOU, Empire agreed to make additional
disclosures related to the Merger in the proxy statement (which
were made on June 8, 2016). Empire and the other defendants that
entered into the MOU did so solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to
vigorously deny, that they committed any violation of law or
engaged in any wrongful acts alleged in the complaint.

The parties to the MOU have agreed to attempt in good faith to
finalize and execute a stipulation of settlement and to present
the stipulation of settlement to the Court for final approval. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions
and will provide for, among other things, certification of the
alleged class as a non-opt-out class action and an award of
plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The
stipulation of settlement will also provide for the release of any
and all claims arising out of or relating to the Merger. The
settlement is subject to final Court approval following notice to
the class members and the parties anticipate this will take place
after the closing of the Merger.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the settling
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the Court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if
the Merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed
settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.

The Company says the outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted
with any certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or
jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment
granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin
completion of the Merger. All of the defendants believe that the
claims asserted against them in the lawsuit are without merit.

The Empire District Electric Company (EDE), a Kansas corporation
organized in 1909, is an operating public utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity in parts of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
The Company operates its businesses as three segments: electric,
gas and other.  As part of its electric segment, the Company also
provides water service to three towns in Missouri.  The Empire
District Gas Company (EDG) is our wholly-owned subsidiary which
provides natural gas distribution to customers in 48 communities
in northwest, north central and west central Missouri. The
Company's other segment consists of its fiber optics business.


EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: Sued for Denying Health Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Gallagher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.,
d/b/a Empire BlueCross BlueShield, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-09105 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks an award of benefits
representing those sums that Plaintiff and class members paid for
wilderness treatment that should have been covered by the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff further seeks disgorgement of all profits Defendant
enjoyed through the use of money that should have been used to pay
Plaintiffs' and class' legitimate coverage claims; an order
requiring Defendant to cover all medically necessary wilderness
treatment in the future; and all other relief related to this
action, including payment of reasonable fees, costs, and interest
where permitted by law.

According to the complaint, this lawsuit presents a narrow issue
that is of critical importance -- may a health insurer deny
coverage for mental health treatment in circumstances where there
is no corresponding limitation for treatment for physical injury
and not violate the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act of 2008 (Parity Act)? It is the burden of this case
that Defendant's denial of coverage breaches the protections of
the Parity Act, which are -- as a matter of law -- embedded as a
material term of the contract of insurance that governs the rights
and responsibilities of the parties. William Gallagher receives
his health insurance through his employer, Mount Sinai Health
System, a private, New York city-based hospital and health care
company.  This self-funded health insurance plan is administered
by Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., d/b/a Empire BlueCross
BlueShield. It is regulated by ERISA. Gallagher's
16-year-old daughter, J.G., is a covered beneficiary under this
plan, as well.

Defendant is a not-for-profit managed care subsidiary of Anthem,
Inc. It is a New York-based entity that administers self-funded
health insurance plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

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


ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Stockholders to File Consolidated Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in two stockholder lawsuits will file a
consolidated complaint this month, according to EndoChoice
Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On July 18, 2016 and October 10, 2016, putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, against the Company, certain of the Company's current
officers, certain current and former members of the Company's
board of directors, and the underwriters of our initial public
offering (the "IPO"). The complaints, which are substantially
similar, allege that the registration statement for our IPO
contained false and misleading statements relating to sales of
Fuse(R) and asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of
EndoChoice common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The
complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, rescission and
other relief. The Plaintiffs are seeking consolidation of the two
actions, and have committed to filing an amended consolidated
complaint by December 2, 2016.

The Company believes the claims and allegations in the suits are
without merit, and the Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.

Based on the limited nature of the plaintiffs' allegations, the
early stage of the proceedings, the lack of discovery and because
significant legal issues have yet to be raised and decided by the
court, we have determined that the amount of any possible loss or
range of possible loss in connection with the above litigation is
not reasonably estimable. While we believe the plaintiffs' claims
and allegations are without merit, due to the uncertainties
inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome and
resolution of this suit. An adverse outcome could materially and
adversely affect the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

EndoChoice Holdings, Inc., is a medical device company
headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, focused exclusively on
designing and commercializing a platform of innovative products
for gastrointestinal, or GI, caregivers.  The Company offers a
comprehensive range of products and services that span single use
devices and infection control, pathology, and imaging
technologies.


FACEBOOK INC: "Nagby" Files Securities Class Action in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
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, v. 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 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02683 (D. Nev., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks statutory
penalties, actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and any
additional legal or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate
as a result of damages caused by Defendants' alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

According to the complaint, on May 2014, Facebook introduced new
advertising and content "metrics" designed to, among other things,
to help advertisers "better understand how people respond to
[their] videos on Facebook", to measure results from its paid
advertising products, and to allow advertisers to measure the
performance of their Facebook ads and campaigns. Facebook touted
its advertising metrics as a valuable tool for measuring the
success of paid advertisements, but had no third-party to
independently monitor or evaluate the data derived from the
advertising metrics, or to verify the accuracy of the metrics
data, despite heavy criticism from ad companies to be more
transparent. On or about April, 2015, Facebook internally began to
discover errors with the calculation of the advertising and
content metrics, but concealed such information from the public
and failed to include it in SEC filings. With knowledge of the
faulty metrics, the Individual Defendants began selling off
substantial shares in Facebook at a profit. On or about September
17, 2015, Facebook announced that it would let ad companies
utilize third-party software from analytics firm, Moat, Inc., to
analyze ad metrics on Facebook. On December 1, 2015, Individual
Defendants began implementing a plan to liquidate their Facebook
stock while also maintaining majority voting power via a three to
one stock split. Class A and Class B shareholders would receive
two additional share of a new Class C stock that holds no voting
power.

Facebook is an American for-profit corporation and online social
media and social networking service based in Menlo Park,
California, United States.

Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of
Facebook, and during the Class Period sold millions of shares of
the Company, while in possession of adverse undisclosed
information about the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Robert M. Adams, Esq.
          Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
          EGLET PRINCE
          400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NE 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450 5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450 5451
          E-mail: eservice@egletwall.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Settlement Checks Distributed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Bixenspan, writing for Law Newz, reports that you may have
noticed something unexpected in your mailbox (the real, physical
one by your house): A letter with a return address from "Fraley v.
Facebook Inc." When you open it, you'll find a $15 check inside.
To answer your questions, yes, it's real, no, there are no strings
attached, and yes, you signed up for it.  You just don't remember
that you did.

Here's what the genuine article looks like so you can be sure that
it's what you got in the mail:

Fraley v. Facebook is a class action lawsuit that was filed over
five and a half years ago on April 4, 2011.  It concerned
"sponsored stories" that used Facebook members' names and photos
in advertisements without their permission.  In August 2012,
Facebook agreed to a $20 million settlement, but the judge
rejected it, saying that the number was something that the social
networking company "plucked out of thin air."  A deadline for
Facebook users to opt into the case was set for May 2, 2013, and
three months later, the $20 million settlement was approved after
the judge was satisfied that it was the subject of negotiation
between both sides.

Third parties kept the case tied up in appeals for years, but
those were finally cleared up in January, freeing up the transfer
of all of the money for the class members.  Now, finally, the
lawyers were able to send out your $15 check that you don't
remember signing up for three and a half years ago.  Spend it on
something nice.


FANDUEL: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration in Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Heitner, writing for Forbes, reports that the sports
business news of the week was likely that FanDuel and DraftKings
have agreed to terms on a merger, which is expected to close at
the end of 2017 as long as it passes antitrust scrutiny.  One of
the major causes for the transaction is that each company has
spent millions of dollars in legal and lobbying fees over the past
year to fight against lawsuits and push new legislation that clear
legalizes their operations.  The theory is that, as one entity,
costs may be saved on both fronts.

One major ongoing battle is a consolidated class action pending in
Massachusetts federal court against FanDuel and DraftKings, which
includes more than twenty consumer protection claims.  In
September, FanDuel and DraftKings each argued that the litigation
should be dismissed and sent to arbitration, as each company
contains an arbitration clause in its respective terms and
conditions.  That argument was reinforced by way of filing motions
to compel arbitration.

The motions cite to case law that says the Federal Arbitration Act
embodies the national policy favoring arbitration and places
arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts,
and notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has directed that courts
must rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate.  They believe
that their respective terms of use contain enforceable arbitration
provisions, which require the court to kick the claims to an
arbitrator.


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Faces Mergers-Related Class Suit in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. is facing a shareholder class action
lawsuit arising from proposed mergers with American Farmland
Company and American Farmland Company L.P., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On September 12, 2016, the Company, the Operating Partnership and
certain of their respective subsidiaries entered into a definitive
agreement and plan of merger (the "AFCO Merger Agreement") with
American Farmland Company ("AFCO") and American Farmland Company
L.P. ("AFCO OP").  Pursuant to the terms of the AFCO Merger
Agreement, one of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries will
merge with and into AFCO OP with AFCO OP surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership (the "Partnership
Merger"), and AFCO will merge with and into another one of the
Company's wholly owned subsidiaries with such wholly owned
subsidiary surviving (the "Company Merger" and together with the
Partnership Merger, the "AFCO Mergers").  The Mergers are expected
to close in first quarter of 2017.

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against AFCO,
seeking to represent a proposed class of all AFCO stockholders
captioned Parshall v. American Farmland Company et al., Case No.
24C16005745. The complaint names as defendants AFCO, the members
of AFCO's board of directors, AFCO OP, the Company, the Operating
Partnership, Farmland Partners OP GP LLC, FPI Heartland LLC, FPI
Heartland Operating Partnership, LP and FPI Heartland GP LLC.  The
complaint alleges that the AFCO directors breached their duties to
AFCO in connection with the evaluation and approval of the AFCO
Mergers. In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that AFCO, AFCO OP, the Company, Farmland Partners OP GP LLC, FPI
Heartland LLC, FPI Heartland Operating Partnership, LP and FPI
Heartland GP LLC aided and abetted those breaches of duties. The
complaint seeks equitable relief, including a potential injunction
against the AFCO Mergers. The deadline for an answer or other
responsive pleading by the defendants has not yet passed.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intends to defend against those allegations.

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate
company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality farmland
located in agricultural markets throughout North America.  The
Company was incorporated in Maryland on September 27, 2013.  The
Company is the sole member of the general partner of Farmland
Partners Operating Partnership, LP, which was formed in Delaware
on September 27, 2013.  As of September 30, 2016, the Company
owned a portfolio of approximately 114,119 acres which are
consolidated in these financial statements.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Dismissal of "Mungiello" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LARRY MUNGIELLO, ROBERT CHABAK and ROCCO
NOTARFRANCESCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS
CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent, Docket No. A-4077-14T2 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division affirmed the Law Division's February 20, 2015 order
granting the Federal Express Corporation's motion for summary
judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Larry Mungiello, Robert Chabak, and Rocco Notarfrancesco were
employed by Federal Express in New Jersey as couriers.  Federal
Express terminated Mungiello on August 31, 2005; Notarfrancesco on
April 28, 2008; and Chabak on July 10, 2008.

On February 22, 2006, Mungiello and Notarfrancesco opted into a
proposed class action suit filed by three other couriers against
Federal Express for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA).  The suit was captioned Clausnitzer v.
Fed. Express Corp., SA CV 05-1269 DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.).  Chabak
joined them on May 15, 2007.

On October 19, 2007, the federal district court denied the
couriers' motion for class certification and dismissed the claims
of the opt-in plaintiffs, including Mungiello, Chabak, and
Notarfrancesco, without prejudice.  The plaintiffs in Clausnitzer
filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the pendency of the appeal, the same attorney who had
represented the Clausnitzer plaintiffs filed a virtually identical
proposed class action on March 20, 2008 captioned Hulac v. Fed.
Express Corp., SA CV 08-4449 DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.).  Mungiello,
Chabak, and Notarfrancesco were all named plaintiffs in the Hulac
litigation.

On November 20, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's decision denying class certification in Clausnitzer.  On
December 7, 2009, Federal Express notified the district court in
the Hulac matter of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Clausnitzer.

The district court conducted a status conference on August 23,
2012, where the parties entered into a "stipulation."  The
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss "[t]he ADEA collective claim and the
ERISA class claim" with prejudice.  They further agreed that
"[t]he individual claims of all plaintiffs other than the first
named plaintiff, Fred Hulac, will be dismissed without prejudice."
Significantly, the stipulation did not provide that Federal
Express waived its right to assert a statute of limitations
defense in any future proceeding.

On October 9, 2012, Mungiello and Chabak filed a complaint in the
Law Division alleging, for the first time, that Federal Express
discriminated against them on the basis of their age, subjected
them to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against them in
violation of the Law Against Discrimination.  On June 9, 2014,
Judge Charles Powers, Jr. granted Mungiello and Chabak's motion to
amend the complaint to add Notarfrancesco "as a party plaintiff."

On January 5, 2015, Federal Express moved for summary judgment,
arguing that the plaintiffs' LAD claims were barred by the two-
year statute of limitations applicable to such claims.  The
plaintiffs responded by asserting that the time to file their LAD
claims had been "tolled" by their participation in the prospective
class actions in the Clausnitzer and Hulac matters.

Following oral argument on February 20, 2015, Judge Powers
rendered a comprehensive written opinion, granting Federal
Express' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint as untimely.

The judge concluded that the two-year LAD limitations period was
subject to tolling because all three plaintiffs participated in
prior proceedings in which class certification was sought, and in
which the ADEA claims raised were substantially similar to their
LAD claims.

However, the judge also explained that the tolling period ends
when class certification is denied or when it becomes evident that
certification is futile or will not be pursued, and that a
plaintiff cannot extend the tolling period by filing a second,
substantially similar class action complaint after class
certification is denied in a prior action in which he or she has
participated.  Thus, the judge held that the plaintiffs'
subsequent participation in the Hulac litigation did not continue
to toll their LAD claims.  In other words, the plaintiffs' LAD
claims were only tolled until the question of class certification
was determined.

For Mungiello, the judge found that the limitations period was
tolled beginning on February 22, 2006, when Mungiello opted into
the Clausnitzer litigation, but ended on October 19, 2007, when
class certification was denied in Clausnitzer.  The judge also
found that tolling ended for Chabak and Notarfrancesco on December
7, 2009, when seeking class certification in Hulac became futile.
Thus, Judge Powers concluded that Mungiello and Chabak's October
9, 2012 LAD complaint was filed well beyond the expiration of the
two-year statute of limitations, and Notarfrancesco's decision to
join the litigation in June 2014 was even more out of time.

The Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed substantially for the
reasons expressed in Judge Powers thoughtful February 20, 2015
written opinion.  The Superior Court was satisfied that Judge
Powers properly granted summary judgment to Federal Express and
correctly dismissed the complaint on statute of limitations
grounds.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 21, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/AUEzMf from Leagle.com.

Vincent A. Antoniello -- vantoniello@resnicklg.com -- argued the
cause for appellants (Resnick Law Group, PC, attorneys; Mr.
Antoniello, on the briefs).

Sandra C. Isom of the Tennessee bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued
the cause for respondent (Elizabeth Low and Ms. Isom, attorneys;
Ms. Low and Ms. Isom, on the brief).


FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The agreement to settle the debit transaction sequencing
litigation has received preliminary approval, according to First
Horizon National Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

First Tennessee Bank National Association (FTBNA) is a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees
charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is
that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted
each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First
Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for
Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. In July 2016 FHN
and the plaintiff submitted a notice of proposed settlement to the
court, which later received preliminary approval by the court. The
proposed settlement remains subject to an extended approval
process which FHN estimates will be completed in the first half of
2017.

The Company says the material loss contingency liability mentioned
above includes an amount for this matter based on FHN's assessment
of the settlement.


HERSHEY'S: Says Kisses False Advertising Class Action Meritless
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Hershey's
is calling a class action lawsuit filed against it over the amount
of Kisses in its packaging meritless.

The class action, filed on Sept. 20 in New York federal court,
claims Hershey's falsely advertises the amount of candy in its 12
ounce bags of Kisses.  Plaintiff Christopher Huppert says some
bags of Hershey's Kisses (for instance Kisses with almonds)
contain less than 12 ounces of candy but are sold for the same
price as the 12 ounce classic bag of milk chocolate Kisses.

The discrepancy in ounces stated on the bag and the actual weight
of the candy violates New York's Consumer Protection Act, he
alleges.

Jennifer Sniderman, director of strategic communications at
Hershey's, says "There is no merit to this suit."

"Hershey's packaging fully complies with all state and federal
laws," she added.

According to the complaint, "Hershey's has reduced the contents of
the 'Classic Bags' for Hershey's kisses Milk Chocolate with
Almonds by 8%, and under-filled the bags with only 11 ounces (net
weight) of Kisses."

It claims the cookies n' creme bags only have 10.5 ounces of
Kisses, but the price is the same as that of the classic 12 ounce
bags of classic Kisses.

As a result, "Defendant has engaged in an unfair and deceptive
business practice that has the capacity, tendency, and effect of
deceiving reasonable consumers who purchase the products," the
complaint claims.

According to the complaint, "Defendant has engaged in a systematic
course of misrepresenting the products to consumers."  The
plaintiff claims the packaging violates section 349 of the New
York General Business Law.

Mr. Huppert also claims that Hershey's violates New York's section
350 of General Business Law, which defines false advertising as
"advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the kind,
character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if
such advertising is misleading in a material respect."

Mr. Huppert, and prospective class members, are seeking to recover
their actual damages, or $50, for each alleged violation. He also
seeks triple damages and attorneys fees.

Ms. Sniderman, however, states that "The label of every Hershey
product clearly and accurately states the weight of the product in
the package for consumers to read at the time of purchase."

Hershey's milk chocolate Kisses have been a company staple since
1907.  In recent years, the company has expanded the line of
individually wrapped chocolates to include Hershey's with almonds,
cookies n' creme, dark chocolate, mint, hugs and more.

Judge Cathy Seibel has granted Hershey's an extension of time to
respond to the complaint.  Its answer was due on Nov. 22.

Mr. Huppert is represented by Jeffrey I. Carton --
jcarton@denleacarton.com -- and Robert J. Berg --
rberg@denleacarton.com -- of Denlea & Carton LLP in White Plains,
New York.


HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Somalia Veterans File Mefloquine Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
politicians of all stripes are asking the federal Health Minister
to take another look at the potentially harmful effects of an
anti-malarial drug that some veterans say permanently damaged
their brains and contributed to the violence that erupted during
the Somalia mission of the early 1990s.

At the same time, a proposed class-action lawsuit launched against
the manufacturer of mefloquine and the Defence Department on
behalf of veterans who say they still suffer repercussions from
the pills they were forced to take on overseas deployments has
been given new life as more former soldiers step forward to say
they too were harmed.

The controversy around mefloquine, a drug marketed as Lariam that
is still being offered to Canadian troops when they are sent to
countries where malaria is prevalent, has been brewing since 1992
when a Somali teenager was beaten to death by Canadian soldiers.
Veterans of the mission blame the drug for psychological damage
that may have caused the aggressive behaviour.

The Commons Veterans Affairs committee, which is studying mental
health and suicide prevention among former military personnel,
wrote to Health Minister Jane Philpott to request that "the
effects of the anti-Malaria drug mefloquine be examined in greater
detail."

The committee heard this fall from several veterans who told
heart-wrenching stories about what they describe as the after-
effects of the medicine including tinnitus, psychosis, paranoia
and an inability to control their tempers. The testimony shocked
some MPs and moved at least one to tears.

"I write to you in my capacity as chair in order to bring forward
the concerns raised with regard to the historic and continuing use
of mefloquine as an anti-malarial prophylaxis," Liberal MP Neil
Ellis wrote in the letter to Dr. Philpott.

Chief among the concerns raised at the committee hearings, wrote
Mr. Ellis, were "neuropsychiatric reactions, questions over
labelling and prescribing practices, paucity of empirical and
peer-reviewed scientific evidence concerning neurotoxicity, and
difficulties in finding potential treatment plans for those that
may have persistent and lasting adverse symptomatology that could
potentially be linked to the use of mefloquine."

When asked for her response to the letter, Dr. Philpott's staff
turned the matter over to communications staff within the health
department who said: "Health Canada continues to monitor the
safety of mefloquine and will take action as necessary to make
sure the benefits continue to outweigh its risks."

It wasn't until August of this year -- three years after similar
warnings were issued in the United States -- that Health Canada
posted a notice saying the drug can cause adverse neuropsychiatric
reactions "that have been reported to continue many years after
mefloquine has been stopped" and that "permanent vestibular damage
has been seen in some cases."

A group of veterans is now calling for an inquiry into what role
the medication might have played in Somalia, and for the
government to contact troops or veterans who were required to take
mefloquine to determine if they suffered long-term consequences.
They also want more research to develop better diagnosis and
treatment of the effects.

Meanwhile, as in Britain, Australia and the United States, some
Canadian veterans are turning to the courts.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Loses TCPA Class Suit Challenge
---------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
Hooters of America, LLC ("Hooters") recently lost a challenge to a
federal lawsuit brought in connection with allegations that its
text message advertisements violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  The court rejected Hooters' argument
that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the TCPA lawsuit, an
argument premised on the U.S. Supreme Court's ("SCOTUS") recent
decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Why did the Court reject the Spokeo challenge?

Hooters' argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring
a TCPA claim because he had not suffered an injury in fact, a
constitutional threshold requirement reinforced by the Spokeo
decision.  According to Hooters' argument, Plaintiff merely
alleged that he had been the victim of a procedural violation of
the TCPA namely, the receipt of a single text message
advertisement after withdrawal of consent.  The Court rejected
this argument, however, reasoning that Congress has determined
that receipt of even one call to one's cellphone without consent
is a sufficiently particularized injury for standing purposes,
specifically noting that an invasion of privacy or any time wasted
reading the text message is an adequately concrete injury.

A distinct split in authority is taking root in the aftermath of
the Spokeo decision, particularly within the TCPA lawsuit space.
Some courts have found that simply alleging receipt of calls in
violation of the TCPA, without more, is insufficient to survive a
Spokeo challenge.  However, others, like the court that ruled
against Hooters, have been inclined to find that receipt of such a
text message is precisely the injury that Congress intended to
remedy through passage of the TCPA, and thus sufficient for Spokeo
purposes.  It is, nevertheless, apparent that the relative
strength of Spokeo-based challenges to TCPA claims will continue
to remain unsettled and in flux until such time as SCOTUS is
presented with an opportunity to revisit the issue.

Protect Your Business Against a TCPA Lawsuit

Klein Moynihan Turco LLP has written extensively about increased
interest, from regulators and class action attorneys alike, in
telemarketing calls and text messages placed to cell phones.
Having lost its Spokeo-based challenge, and a related challenge to
the sufficiency of the class claims at issue, Hooters could be
exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars in liability.  This
should serve to reinforce the notion that, in today's regulatory
environment, it is imperative to have telemarketing practices and
procedures examined by experienced counsel in order to avoid
potentially disastrous consequences in the event that a class
action plaintiff or federal regulator brings a TCPA lawsuit for
alleged telemarketing-related violations.


HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Silver Fix Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint was granted in part and denied in part in October 2016
in the matter entitled In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust
Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation), according to HSBC USA Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company and
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hill" Madoff-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that in September 2016, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
HSBC defendants' motion to dismiss in Stephen and Leyla Hill, et
al. v. HSBC Bank plc, et al. (Case No. 14-CV-9745(LTS)), which is
a part of Madoff Litigation.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company and
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Amended Gold Fix Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint was granted in part and denied in part in October 2016
in the matter captioned In re Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold
Futures and Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation),
according to HSBC USA Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company and
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Faces Class Suit in New York by Indirect FX Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit in New
York brought by "indirect" foreign exchange purchasers, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

In September 2016, a new lawsuit alleging federal and state
antitrust claims was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by "indirect" FX purchasers who
invested in funds that engaged in FX-related transactions. The
action purports to assert claims for New York and California sub-
classes under state law and has been assigned to the judge
overseeing the pending FX class action settlement.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company and
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Has Final Approval of Checking Account Overdraft Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that the court issued an order in
October 2016 granting final approval of the settlement in the
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company and
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: HK and Shanghai Banking Wins Bid to Toss "Giron" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Court grants Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit styled Ramiro Giron, et al. v. Hong Kong and
Shanghai Bank Company Ltd., et al., according to HSBC USA Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

In October 2016, the court granted the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Company's motion to dismiss, having previously granted in
part and denied in part HSBC Bank USA's motion.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company and
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.


IAC: Board Members Sued for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------
SIMCHA HALBERSTAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., CHELSEA
CLINTON, BARRY DILLER, MICHAEL D. EISNER, BONNIE S. HAMMER, VICTOR
A. KAUFMAN, JOSEPH LEVIN, BRYAN LOURD, DAVID
ROSENBLATT, ALAN G. SPOON, ALEXANDER VON FURSTENBERG, RICHARD F.
ZANNINO, and IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, the Defendants, Case No. 12935
(Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks to recover damages from
the members of the Board for breaches of fiduciary duty arising
out of the Defendants' ongoing effort to entrench IAC's
controlling stockholders in perpetuity.

The Defendants' ongoing effort comprises a proposed
recapitalization of the Company's capital structure by
establishing a new non-voting class of capital stock, which will
be known as Class C common stock. The Class C common stock will
have no voting rights. As explained in the Company's Proxy
Statement, Class C common stock, of which there will be
600,000,000 authorized shares, will provide IAC with what the
Board describes as "acquisition currency", enabling the Company to
undertake strategic transactions without compromising Diller and
his family members' control. Indeed, the Board acknowledges in the
Proxy Statement that Recapitalization will enable future
acquisitions free of "any potential inhibition on the willingness
of the Diller Parties to support the use of common equity for
acquisitions", given that issuances of either IAC common stock or
Class B common stock would reduce the Diller Parties' voting
control. Due to its benefits to the Diller Parties, Diller, who is
also the Company's Chairman and Senior Executive (the most senior
management position at the Company), proposed the creation of the
Class C common stock to the Board in April 2016. The Board then
formed a "Special Committee", consisting of defendants Edgar
Bronfman, Jr., Chelsea Clinton, Michael Eisner, Bonnie Hammer,
Bryan Lourd, David Rosenblatt, Alan Spoon, and Richard F. Zannino
to consider this proposal. Ultimately, the Special Committee
recommended this proposal to the full Board, which approved it.
The Special Committee, however, failed to obtain anything of
meaningful value from the Diller Parties in exchange for the
extraordinarily valuable benefit that the Reclassification will
bestow upon them.

AC is a media and Internet company with more than 150 brands and
products serving consumer audiences.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Ira A. Schochet, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573 2540

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Amy Miller, Esq.
          William J. Fields, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  amiller@zlk.com
                  wfields@zlk.com


ILLINOIS: Dec. 14 FOID Card Case Management Conference Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth scheduled a
case management conference in a suit alleging the state
inappropriately charged a $1 processing fee for firearm owner
identification cards, pending his ruling on the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

In his Nov. 16 order, Judge Ruth scheduled the case management
conference for Dec. 14 at 9 a.m.

Wood River attorney Thomas Maag filed the class action on
Oct. 15, 2015, for plaintiff Gary Patrick Sterr, who says he was
charged the extra dollar as a convenience fee through the Illinois
E-pay program for processing applications online.

Firearms Services Bureau chief Jessica Trame and Illinois
Treasurer Michael Frerichs are named defendants in the suit.  They
are represented by Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

In his complaint, Mr. Maag argues that statute 430 ILCS 65/5
expressly states that the FOID fee is $10.

By charging an additional $1, he claims Ms. Trame is unilaterally
imposing a 10 percent surcharge on FOID cards without statutory
authority.

He further claims it is impossible to get a FOID card without
paying the extra fee on top of the $10 mandatory cost (except for
certain members of the military who are exempt all together)
because the Firearms Services Bureau stopped accepting paper
applications that allowed people to mail $10 checks or money
orders.

"Defendants have charged a minimum of ten thousand people, and
possibly substantially more, well into the hundreds of thousands
or millions of class members," Mr. Maag wrote.

In 2011, the state received 321,000 FOID applications, he wrote.

Mr. Maag notes that in order to lawfully possess a firearm in
Illinois, "it is generally required to have in a person's
possession a currently valid" FOID card.

The plaintiff also asked the court to certify the case as a class
action.  Mr. Maag seeks to represent a class including anyone who
applied for a FOID card any time in 2015 and who paid a fee in
excess of $10.

Justice Trame and Mr. Frerichs objected to the class definition in
their April 15 response to Mr. Sterr's motion for class
certification.  They argue that the proposed class definition is
too vague and potentially overbroad.  They ask that the class be
more specifically defined.

The defendants proposed a class certification to include "all
persons who applied for a Firearm Owners Identification card from
March 15, 2015, through and including the date of final judgment,
and paid a $1.00 payment processing service fee in addition to a
$10.00 application fee upon submission of that application."

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-1337


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Appeals $15-Bil. Ruling in Smokers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cherry, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the judge
who ordered three tobacco companies to pay more than $15 billion
in damages to Quebec smokers for damaging their health created his
own law in the process, a lawyer for the companies argued at the
Quebec Court of Appeal.

Simon Potter was the first lawyer to make arguments on Nov. 21 in
what was scheduled to be an unusually long five-day hearing before
the appellate court.

Mr. Potter argued that Superior Court Justice Brian Riordan's
decision in June 2015 contains "clear errors of law" and a "new
standard of causation" that does not exist in Canadian law.

Justice Riordan found Imperial Tobacco Canada, JTI-Macdonald Corp.
and Rothman, Benson Hedges Inc. liable for disease and addiction
suffered by more than one million Quebecers over a nearly 50-year
period.  Mr. Potter argued the decision did not offer evidence
that the people included in the class action were unaware of the
risks involved with smoking before they developed health problems.

"Cause isn't found through common sense.  Cause is found through
evidence," Mr. Potter told the five judges who are hearing the
appeal.  "It's difficult to parse out what standard of causation
the judge did use.

"Our clients are stuck with a liability that is based on
conjecture."

Mr. Potter also criticized the methods Justice Riordan used to
determine how many people should be eligible to receive damages.

"We're in a situation where we have an enormous net and there are
a lot of people who shouldn't be in it," Mr. Potter said.

Justice Riordan's decision involved two class-action suits.  One
group involved 100,000 smokers and ex-smokers who had developed
lung cancer, throat cancer or emphysema.  The other group
represented 918,000 addicted smokers, but only those who developed
disease will get a financial award.

Mario Bujold, the director general of the Conseil quebecois sur le
tabac et la sante, a plaintiff in the class action, said outside
court the delay caused by the appeal is preventing people who have
serious health problems from having access to what the court
awarded them.

"That's the sad part of it.  We're talking about victims of the
products of the tobacco companies who have been waiting 18 years
for justice to be rendered, and all they can do is wait again. I'm
sad for that because those are sick people who have been waiting
too long."

"The tobacco companies are saying we didn't have evidence to prove
that if the companies gave more information (on the risks
involved) to the customer there would less smokers.  They refuse
to admit there is a fault there.  But at the same time when you
look at how they react to having to issue every new warning, you
can really see how that has an impact.  The type of warning has an
impact on smokers.  That's the heart of the whole trial."

Lawyers for the Conseil quebecois sur le tabac et la sante were
set to make their arguments.


JAKKS PACIFIC: California Court Dismisses "Melot"
-------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc., on Nov. 22 announced that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California ordered the
dismissal with prejudice all of the claims asserted in the
consolidated action captioned John Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No.-LA CV13-05388 JAK (SSx), a putative class action
that commenced in July 2013.


JAMES HARDIE: Cladding Class Action Begins in NZ High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
NZCity reports that building owners taking part in a $250 million
cladding class action against James Hardie had packed the
courtroom gallery for the start of interlocutory applications in
the High Court at Auckland.

The action involves 1,100 Auckland leaky building owners, backed
by litigation funders, who are making negligence claims against
various James Hardie group companies for failure of fibre cement
cladding products.

The case relates to buildings spanning the time period 1983 to
2010 and all but four of them are residential properties.

The plaintiffs allege they have suffered financial losses and
significant health issues arising from the use of non-performing
cladding materials marketed as Harditex, Monotek, and Titan board.

In October the High Court ruled that 15 new plaintiffs could join
the action, a decision opposed by James Hardie.

The three legs of the plaintiffs' claim are that there was
negligence in the design, development, manufacture, and promotion
of the cladding products, that they should have been withdrawn
when the company realised there were problems, and that there were
breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act.

Lawyers representing the James Hardie group of companies are
seeking to have two of the seven defendant companies removed from
the claim under a summary judgment application because they were
simply holding companies in New Zealand and Australia, with shares
in the operational units.

Mark O'Brien QC, representing the plaintiffs, said the holding
companies owed a "duty of care" to the plaintiffs because
Harditex, which is the product involved in most of the claims, was
designed and developed by the James Hardie group, not just the New
Zealand subsidiaries.  The New Zealand company shared common
directors with the Australian parents, and still do.

"They owed a direct duty of care, they breached it, and should
make good," he said.

Mr. O'Brien told the High Court that the issues facing the leaky
building owners were not isolated.  In October, owners of leaky
buildings in Wellington were given High Court permission to pursue
a $25 million representative action against the building materials
firm.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Wants Invokana Cases Transferred to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Janssen Pharmaceuticals is seeking to move the growing litigation
over its diabetes medication Invokana from state to federal court.

Drugmaker Janssen Pharmaceuticals recently filed notices in more
than 100 cases pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
indicating it removed the cases to federal court.  Although the
copies of the notices of removal were filed in state court on Nov.
17, the notices were initially filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early November.
Janssen has pointed to the Class Action Fairness Act as the basis
for removal to federal court.

Attorney Daniel Gallucci -- dgallucci@nastlaw.com -- of NastLaw,
who is representing numerous plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs plan
to swiftly file a response in federal court challenging the
removal.

"The record is clear that removal is improper under any standard,
including CAFA," Mr. Gallucci said.

Michael Weinkowitz -- mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman declined to comment, and other attorneys
representing plaintiffs, including Laura A. Feldman of Feldman &
Pinto, Ellen Relkin of Weitz & Luxenberg and Joshua Mankoff of
Lopez McHugh, did not return a call for comment.

"Plaintiffs' counsel have filed more than 100 lawsuits in
Philadelphia County and have proposed that the claims be
consolidated and tried together in a mass tort proceeding in state
court," a spokeswoman for Janssen said in an emailed statement.
"Exercising the rights provided by the Class Action Fairness Act,
we have removed the cases to federal court."

A notice filed in Portnoff v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals said the
case was one of 106 cases that the drugmaker sought to remove to
federal court pursuant to CAFA.  According to the filing, the
primary objective of that act is to ensure federal courts can
consider "interstate cases of national importance."

"The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has original subject-matter
jurisdiction over these actions because, together, they constitute
a 'mass action,'" said the notice, which was filed by Gregory T.
Sturges -- sturgesg@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig.

The move by Janssen comes as the plaintiffs have asked the
Philadelphia court to consolidate the litigation into a mass tort
program.

In September, the plaintiffs filed a petition to consolidate 87
cases over Invokana are pending in the venue.  The firms handling
the suits said they expected that number to at least double soon.
The petition said the claims are virtually identical, and
consolidation would increase the efficiency of the litigation.
The suits all claim that the diabetes drug causes kidney failure
and a condition called diabetic ketoacidosis, which is caused by
the buildup of acids in the blood.

Along with alleging that defendants Janssen Pharmaceuticals and
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharmaceuticals failed to warn and improperly
marketed the drug, plaintiffs are also alleging Invokana was
defectively designed because it prevents the body from
metabolizing excess glucose by directing it to be excreted through
the kidneys.


JERICHO OIL: Named Defendant in Okla. Earthquake Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Jericho Oil Oklahoma Corp has been named as
one of 27 defendants in class action petition filed in district
court of Pawnee County Oklahoma

No specific damage amount is alleged in the action.

The petition alleges that named oil and gas companies caused man-
made earthquakes through disposal of fracking wastewater.


K ZARK MEDICAL: Rosario-Medina Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Rosario-Medina, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K Zark Medical P.C., and
Konstantinos Zarkadas, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09169
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime pay pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself, and other similarly-
situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the
Defendants, individually and/or jointly, and who elect to opt
into this action pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, that she and they
are: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendants for working more
than forty hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of
at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such hours
over forty in a week, and (ii) entitled to maximum liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendant is a small organization in the health and allied
services industry located in Astoria, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
          Abdul Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


KEG N KITCHEN: Former Workers Files Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin C. Shelly, writing for Philly Voice, reports that a lawsuit
by former workers at a South Jersey restaurant alleging the owners
of Keg n Kitchen in Westmont cheated them has Camden County
government's attention.

That's because owner Kevin Meeker of Haddonfield is among the
partners operating the Cooper House, a restaurant owned by the
county and leased out for operation.

The suit alleges Mr. Meeker and his wife Karen Meeker altered
workers' time sheets and have improperly applied tip credits to
avoid paying minimum wage.

Three workers also claim the Meekers have pressured current
employees to not join a proposed class-action suit.

The restaurant has denied the allegations.  However, lawyer
Douglas Diaz, a Haddonfield attorney, did not respond to a call
from PhillyVoice seeking comment.

Both sides were to present oral arguments before a federal judge
in Camden.

Dan Keashen, a spokesman for Camden County, said while the
management of the Cooper House is not precisely the same as the
Keg n Kitchen, the county is aware of the suit's allegations
involving Mr. Meeker, who is deeply involved in management of the
Cooper House.

"We are monitoring it," Mr. Keashen said on Nov. 18.


KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Mosseri" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum,
Phillips & Levy, P.C. The case is titled Yvonne Mosseri, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Kirschenbaum, Phillips & Levy, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06555 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2016).

The Defendant is a debt collection firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Approval of Rights-of-Way Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to seek approval of
settlement in the remaining two states in the Rights-of-Way
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company is party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its
networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories. The Company has defeated
motions for class certification in a number of these actions but
expects that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in
the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of
statewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a
class was certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon
settlement, occurred in Koyle, et al. v. Level 3 Communications,
Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle
lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in
November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and
former landowners, have received final federal court approval in
all but one of the applicable states and the parties are actively
engaged in, or have completed, the claims process for the vast
majority of the applicable states, including payment of claims.
The Company continues to seek approval in the remaining two
states.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
approved for all affected landowners.

Level 3 Communications, Inc., is an international facilities-based
provider (that is, a provider that owns or leases a substantial
portion of the plant, property and equipment necessary to provide
its services) of a broad range of integrated communications
services.  The Company created its communications network by
constructing its own assets and through a combination of
purchasing other companies and purchasing or leasing facilities
from others.  The Company designed its network to provide
communications services that employ and take advantage of rapidly
improving underlying optical, Internet Protocol, computing and
storage technologies.


LIFE PARTNERS: Creditors Trust to Handle Class Action Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc.'s Confirmed Plan of Reorganization
provides that the Life Partners Creditors' Trust will be formed to
implement the provisions of the Plan, including to pursue
litigation, and to implement Class Action Settlement Agreement and
the MDL Settlement Agreement, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016.

On October 27, 2016, Life Partners Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Debtors) filed the proposed Revised Third Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,
Docket No. 3427 (the "Plan"). The Plan incorporates by reference
certain documents filed with the Bankruptcy Court as part of the
Plan Supplement filed August 2, 2016, Docket No. 2856.

On November 1, 2016, following an evidentiary hearing on
confirmation of the Plan held over a five week period beginning
August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order, Docket No.
3439 (the "Confirmation Order"), confirming the Plan.

Pursuant to the Plan, Life Partners Creditors' Trust (the
"Creditors' Trust") will (a) pursue litigation and other Causes of
Action assigned to it under the Plan, the Class Action Settlement
Agreement, the MDL Settlement Agreement, and any other settlement
agreements or assignments, and (b) distribute the net proceeds
collected to its beneficiaries. The Confirmation Order approved
the selection of Alan M. Jacobs to serve as the Trustee of the
Creditors' Trust (the "Creditors' Trust Trustee"). The
beneficiaries of the Creditors' Trust shall include all Holders of
Allowed Claims as General Unsecured Creditors, including but not
limited to all Current Position Holders who make the Creditors'
Trust Election and all Former Position Holders, and certain
Investors pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement and
the MDL Settlement Agreement.

On the Effective Date, the Creditors' Trust Governing Trust Board
shall be formed pursuant to the Creditors' Trust Agreement, and
will be comprised of the same individuals who serve as the members
of the Trust Board for the Position Holder Trust. Pursuant to the
Confirmation Order, Messrs. Scalzo, Trimble, Redus, Loy, and Evans
have been approved to serve as the members of the Trust Board for
the Creditors' Trust.

In accordance with the Class Action Settlement Agreement, the
Class Claim shall be Allowed as a Class B2A Allowed Claim in an
aggregate amount equal to the total of all of the amounts
scheduled for each outstanding Fractional Position on LPI's
Bankruptcy Schedule F, as amended, as neither disputed,
contingent, nor unliquidated, and then allocated among the
Fractional Positions held by Class B2A Holders in accordance with
the amounts, if any, set forth next to each respective Fractional
Interest Holder's name on Schedule F. Solely for purposes of the
Plan and subject to the effectiveness of the Plan and the Class
Action Settlement Agreement, any Proof of Claim or Interest of
each Fractional Interest Holder in Class B2A shall be expressly
deemed to have been compromised and exchanged for the treatment
under this Plan. For Class Members with Disputed Claims due to a
pending adversary proceeding or otherwise, the provisions of
section 14.06 of the Plan concerning Distributions are applicable.

The SEC Filing also states that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas have entered its (i) Order (I)
Preliminarily Approving the Class Settlement Agreement; (II)
Conditionally Certifying the Class and Appointing Class Counsel
and Class Representatives; (III) Approving the Form and Manner of
Notice to Class Members; (IV) Setting a Deadline for Objections to
Such Preliminary and Conditional Actions; and (V) Scheduling a
Hearing for the Final Consideration and Approval of Such Actions
[Dkt. No. 43 in Case No. 4:16-cv-00212-A] on June 6, 2016 (the
"Class Action Preliminary Approval Order"), and (ii) Final
Approval Order (Order Approving Class Settlement Agreement,
Certifying Class and Appointing Class Counsel and Class
Representatives) [Dkt. No. 143 in Case No. 4:16-cv-00212-A] (the
"Class Action Final Approval Order" and together with the Class
Action Preliminary Approval Order, the "Class Action Approval
Orders") on September 13, 2016.


LUDLOW MUSIC: Court Narrows Claims in Copyright Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WE SHALL OVERCOME FOUNDATION and BUTLER
FILMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE RICHMOND ORGANIZATION, INC. (TRO
INC.) and LUDLOW MUSIC, INC., Defendants, No. 16cv2725(DLC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote granted in part and denied, in part,
the defendants' July 15, 2016 motion to dismiss.

The defendants The Richmond Organization, Inc. (TRO) and its
subsidiary and imprint Ludlow Music, Inc. possess two copyrights
in the musical composition "We Shall Overcome" (the "Song")
registered with the Copyright Office in 1960 and 1963.  The
plaintiffs We Shall Overcome Foundation (WSOF) and Butler Films,
LLC (Butler) challenged through a putative class action the
defendants' copyright in the Song.  The plaintiffs contended,
inter alia, that the lyrics to the first verse of the Song are
virtually indistinguishable from a song in the public domain.

In its first claim, the complaint sought a declaratory judgment
that the Copyright Act does not bestow upon the defendants the
rights they have asserted against the plaintiffs and others
because (1) the two copyright registrations do not cover the
melody or "familiar lyrics" to the Song, but instead are limited
at most to arrangements and some of the obscure additional verses,
(2) the defendants fraudulently obtained the copyrights, and (3)
the copyrights "have been forfeited."  The complaint also sought
injunctive relief and damages.  The complaint includes four state
law claims for violation of New York General Business Law section
349; breach of contract; money had and received; and rescission
for failure of consideration.

The defendants moved to dismiss at least that portion of the
amended complaint that challenges their protectable copyright
interest in the lyrics to the first verse of the Song, and to
dismiss as well each of the plaintiffs' state law claims.  The
defendants contended that their possession of a copyright
registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of their
copyright in the Song and that the Court should decide as a matter
of law that the changes made to the lyrics in its first verse from
the version in the public domain reflect sufficient originality to
warrant a copyright in the derivative work.  They asserted that
those changes include substituting We for I, Shall for Will, and
Deep for Down.

Judge Cote denied the motion to dismiss as to the claims under the
Copyright Act.

Judge Cote held that the defendants' argument that the copyright
registrations are entitled to a presumption of validity does not
compel dismissal of the claims.  The judge explained that although
a certificate of registration does constitute prima facie evidence
of the validity of a copyright, that presumption may be rebutted
where other evidence casts doubt on the question, such as
"evidence that the work was copied from the public domain."  The
judge found that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the
lyrics in the first verse of the Song were copied from material in
the public domain and thus, have adequately pleaded a lack of
originality and of ownership rights in the said lyrics.

Judge Cote also held that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
fraud on the Copyright Office.  The judge found that the
plaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants deliberately
omitted from their application for a copyright in a derivative
work all reference to the public domain spiritual or the
publications of "I Shall Overcome" and "We Shall Overcome" as
antecedents to the Song, opting instead to list the previously
registered song "I'll Overcome" as the work from which the Song
was derived.  The plaintiffs alleged as well that there was an
insufficient basis for listing as authors of the Song the persons
identified in the application.

Lastly, Judge Cote held that the complaint plausibly alleged that
several works published after a copyright in the Song was obtained
in 1960 did not include the copyright notice required by the 1909
Act.  Thus, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that any copyright obtained by the defendants has been
abrogated under a theory of divestment.

The motion to dismiss the state law claims, however, was granted
on the basis of preemption.

Judge Cote agreed with the defendants that the Copyright Act
preempts the plaintiffs' state law claims.  Those claims are for
money had and received, violation of New York General Business Law
section 349, breach of contract, and rescission for failure of
consideration.  The judge found that the subject matter of the
plaintiffs' claims is the Song, which is a type of work that falls
within the scope of the Copyright Act. The judge also found that
the rights being asserted through the state law claims are
equivalent to a right protected by the Copyright Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Cote's November 21, 2016 corrected
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/vgzu6H from
Leagle.com.

We Shall Overcome Foundation, Plaintiff, represented by Mark C.
Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, Gloria Kui Melwani -- melwani@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Randall Scott Newman --
newman@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

Butler Films, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Randall Scott Newman, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

The Richmond Organization, Inc. (TRO Inc.), Ludlow Music, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Paul V. LiCalsi --
plicalsi@robinskaplan.com -- Robins, Kaplan LLP & Ofer Reger,
Robins, Kaplan LLP/AC.


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Bid to Dismiss "Aguilar" Plaintiffs Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARISELA AGUILAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION d/b/a MTC, Defendant, Civil No.
16-00050WJ/GJF (D.N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson denied the
Management & Training Corporation's (MTC) motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs Efren Jimenez, Rigoberto Rodarte, Noemi Mandoza and
Ivan Gurrola.

The case is a collective/class action lawsuit filed by a group of
over 20 current or former employees of MTC who claim they were not
paid for some of their hours worked on assignment for MTC at the
Otero County Prison Facility near Chaparral, New Mexico.  The
lawsuit asserted claims for unpaid wages and overtime, as well as
other statutory damages and the recovery of attorneys' fees, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and/or the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act (NMMWA).

MTC sought to dismiss involuntarily and with prejudice Rodarte,
Jimenez, Mendoza and Gurrola, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.37(d)(1)(A)
and 42(b), because of their failure to appear for their
depositions and because these plaintiffs are failing to prosecute.

Because it is the first time the court has been called upon to
address issues involving Rodarte, Jimenez, Mendoza and Gurrola,
Judge Johnson gave these particular plaintiffs one opportunity to
participate in the lawsuit.  The judge, however, specified that
the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's directives will
be deemed an intentional decision to ignore these directives -- at
which point dismissal from the lawsuit with prejudice shall
result.

A full-text copy of Judge Johnson's November 21, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/yN5Mha from
Leagle.com.

Marisela Aguilar, Miguel Blanco, Francisco J Carranza, Juan
Coronel, Eric Enriquez, Rafael Gallegos, Robert Gallegos, Benjamin
Guerrero, Jr., Ivan Eloy Gurrola, Vaughn D Hayes, Sr., Jose R
Hernandez, Rogelio Hernandez, Roman Jauregui, Efren Jimenez,
Flavio Lara, Noemi R Mendoza, Sixto Navarette, Anthony Guadalupe
Ordaz, Victor Ortiz, Armando Pacheco, Jr., Alan Perez, Rigoberto
Rodarte, Antonio Vasquez, Adrian Villalobos, Plaintiffs,
represented by David L. Kern -- par@kernlawfirm.com -- Kern Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld --
bblumenfeld@acaciapark.com -- Mendel Blumenfeld, PLLC.

Management & Training Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aaron
C. Viets -- aviets@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin &
Robb, P.A., Charles J. Vigil -- cvigil@rodey.com -- Rodey Dickson
Sloan Akin & Robb, P.A. & Krystle A. Thomas -- kthomas@rodey.com
-- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A..


MARIANI PACKING: Settles Labor Class Action for $400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan McCarthy, writing for Daily Republic, reports that a
settlement of up to $400,000 has been reached in the class action
lawsuit contending Mariani Packing Company in Vacaville failed to
pay overtime, provide meal breaks or issue itemized wage
statements.

Mariani denies all allegations but concluded further litigation
could be lengthy and expensive, according to a court document.

A Mariani representative could not be reached for comment on the
settlement on Nov. 22.

Solano County Superior Court Judge Michael Mattice signed an order
Nov. 2 granting a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

An attorney for Maria Navarro, who worked at the packing company
from 1999 to 2014, filed the case in September 2015 on behalf of
Navarro and other employees.  Ms. Navarro first asserted her
claims in a July 2015 letter to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, according to court documents.

Mariani's website states that for four generations in California
the company has grown, dried, processed and packaged dried fruit
snacks.  Paul Mariani, the immigrant son of a European farmer,
arrived in the Santa Clara Valley in 1906 and planted fruit trees
on 4 acres, according to the website.

Mariani was later the first to introduce moist, ready-to-eat dried
fruit sold in a clear "see-through" package, the website adds.


MDL 1566: Court Rules on Motions in Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert C. Jones ruled on several motions not scheduled for
oral argument in the case captioned In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL
No. 1566 (D. Nev.).

In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
transferred seven class action cases from various districts in
California to the District of Nevada as Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside.  Since then,
the JPML has transferred in several more actions from various
districts throughout the United States.

The consolidated cases arose out of the energy crisis of 2000-
2002.  The plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) alleged that
the defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of
natural gas by reporting false information to price indices
published by trade publications and engaging in wash sales.  40
motions were pending before the Court in several of the
consolidated cases.  Several of the pending motions were scheduled
for oral argument on December 8, 2016.

Judge Jones ruled on several motions not scheduled for oral
argument.

In Case No. 2:05-cv-1331, El Paso LLC (formerly known as El Paso
Corp.), Xcel Energy Inc., and Williams Merchant Services Co., LLC
(formerly known as Williams Merchant Services Co., Inc.)
separately asked the Court to reconsider the defendants' Motion
for Entry of Judgment.  The motion was based on the Court's
previous ruling as to the defendants' release via settlements
reached in the NYMEX litigation in New York.  The Court denied the
motion for entry of judgment without prejudice, because although
most of the moving defendants were entitled to entry of judgment
based on the release, the Court was unable to find these three
entities listed in the First or Second Settlement Agreements.

Judge Jones reconsidered its denial of the Motion for Entry of
Judgment.  The judge found that based on the evidence previously
adduced, El Paso LLC, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Williams Merchant
Services Co., LLC were in fact released via the First and Second
Settlement Agreements in the NYMEX action due to their corporate
relationships to various parties listed therein.

The plaintiffs Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD
Acquisition Co. also asked the Court to reconsider Judge Pro's
February 19, 2008 order in Case No. 2:06-cv-1351 granting summary
judgment to e prime, Inc.  Specifically, e prime, Inc. previously
falsely stated that Xcel Energy Retail Holdings, Inc. (and not e
prime, Inc.) was the parent of the defendant, e prime Energy
Marketing, Inc.  The plaintiffs recently discovered (as the result
of a successful motion to compel) that e prime, Inc. was in fact
the parent of e prime Energy Marketing, Inc. during at least part
of the relevant time period.

Judge Jones held that even if Judge Pro had found the relevant
corporate relationship, the plaintiffs would still have lacked the
evidence necessary to avoid summary judgment in e prime, Inc.'s
favor on the merits.  Judge Jones thus denied the motion to
reconsider.

The plaintiffs in Case Nos. 2:07-cv-1019 and 2:09-cv-915 asked the
Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge's order of September 13,
2016 denying their motion to compel.  Judge Jones held that the
motion is untimely, having been filed on Friday, September 30,
2016, more than 14 days after the September 13, 2016 hearing at
which the challenged ruling was announced.

Judge Jones also vacated the December 8, 2016 oral argument (due
to the extension of briefing deadlines as to many of the pending
motions), and directed the parties to contact the Court to arrange
a mutually agreeable time for oral argument on the remaining
motions (and any additional dispositive motions filed before the
December 8, 2016 deadline).

A full-text copy of Judge Jones' November 16, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/wAjm0e from Leagle.com.

In Re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation,
represented by Jay Kevin Wieser -- jwieser@jw.com -- Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas -- amilunas@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
-- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber --
bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen --
bcohen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D.
Bissett -- bbissett@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald -- cfitzgerald@gablelaw.com --
Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel -- dhazel@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister --
gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com -- Gary D. McCallister & Associates,
LLC, Gregory M. Bentz -- gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon -- jbacon@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III -- tfischer@jw.com --
Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck -- mrobeck@kelleydrye.com --
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik --
mbialzik@kmksc.com -- Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel --
mmiguel@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro
hac vice, Nitin Reddy -- nreddy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III -- oharrison@getrial.com -- Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel -- rm@kupfersteinmanuel.com
-- Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr. --
rjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings --
rbillings@kmksc.com -- Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan -
- tlduncan@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Auila, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Charles A. Moore, Dewey & LeBoeuf
LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac
vice, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K.
Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin
L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Maximum Nursery, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank.

Multiut Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Mandel,
ALAN J. MANDEL, LTD., Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas,
pro hac vice, Ira P. Gould, Greenberg Trauring, LLP, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Gregory M.
Bentz, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin
L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Learjet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D. Palmer, Polsinelli
Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric
I. Unrein, Frieden, Unrein & Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary
D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory L. Musil, Shughart
Thompson & Kilroy, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen
A. Hardee, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Melinda Anne Bialzik,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward,
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli
P.C., Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K.
Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin
L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Cross Oil Refining & Marketing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D.
Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I. Unrein, Frieden, Unrein
& Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister &
Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Gregory L.
Musil, Shughart Thompson & Kilroy, Jennifer Gille Bacon,
Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C.,
pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC,
Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro
hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Topeka Unified School District 501, Plaintiff, represented by Amy
Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D.
Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I. Unrein, Frieden, Unrein
& Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister &
Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Gregory L.
Musil, Shughart Thompson & Kilroy, Jennifer Gille Bacon,
Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C.,
pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC,
Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro
hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D.
Palmer, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen A.
Hardee, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Philip Wayne Bledsoe, R.
Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones,
Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis,
Polsinelli PC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank.

BBD Acquisition Co., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Philip Wayne
Bledsoe, Shughart Thomson * Kilroy, PC, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart
Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis,
Polsinelli PC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank.

Coachella Valley Taxi Owners Association, Plaintiff, represented
by Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice,
Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane
R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP,
Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Arandell Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D. Palmer, Polsinelli
Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C.,
Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon,
Polsinelli PC, Kathleen A. Hardee, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C.,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice,
R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones,
Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis,
Polsinelli PC, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley
C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Robert
L. Gegios, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein
Manuel LLP, Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan
L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Heartland Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, represented by Amy
Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D.
Palmer, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli
PC, Kathleen A. Hardee, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Dan
Boulware, Shughart Thompson & Kilroy, PC, R. Lawrence Ward,
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli
P.C., Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K.
Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna
K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord
LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Craig A.
Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister &
Associates, LLC, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,
Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein,
Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin
L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A.
Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Prime Tanning Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry,
Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart,
Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Dan Boulware, Shughart
Thompson & Kilroy, PC, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson &
Kilroy, PC, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie
K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC,
Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke
Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett
D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald,
Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP,
Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Missouri Public Service Commission, Plaintiff, represented by Amy
Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Cathy J.
Dean, Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, Douglas Kramer,
Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, Matthew C. Hans, Polsinelli
Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, S. Jay Dobbs, Polsinelli Shalton
Flanigan, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie
K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP,
Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Merrick's Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer
Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson &
Kilroy, PC, Robert L. Gegios, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Susan G.
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna K. Milunas,
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent
Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett,
McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals,
Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D.
McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Joseph A.
Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael
John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S.
Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry,
Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart,
Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart
Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Robert L. Gegios, Kohner, Mann & Kailas,
Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan,
P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Sargento Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry,
Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart,
Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart
Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Robert L. Gegios, Kohner, Mann & Kailas,
Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna K.
Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord
LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D.
Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable
Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary
D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Joseph A.
Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael
John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S.
Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Sinclair Oil Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, James Michael Lyons, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Kris Kostolansky, Lewis Roca Rothergerber
Christie LLP, Matthew Corcoran, Goldstein & Associates, pro hac
vice, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac
vice, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, pro hac vice,
Philip M. Ballif, Durham Jones & Pinegar, Anna K. Milunas, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brett D.
Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable
Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary
D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Michael
John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S.
Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, James Michael Lyons, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Kris Kostolansky, Lewis Roca Rothergerber
Christie LLP, Matthew Corcoran, Goldstein & Associates, pro hac
vice, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac
vice, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, pro hac vice,
Philip M. Ballif, Durham Jones & Pinegar, Adam Bloom, pro hac
vice, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber,
Locke Lord LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C.,
Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister
& Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel,
Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C.,
Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan,
Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Ladish Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence
Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Robert L. Gegios, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna K. Milunas,
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent
Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett,
McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals,
Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D.
McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker
L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Reorganized FLI, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry,
Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I. Unrein, Frieden, Unrein &
Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates,
LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Isaac Diel, Sharp
McQueen P.A., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Susan G.
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, Thomas H. Brill, Law Office of Thomas H. Brill,
pro hac vice, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley
C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig
A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker
L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Robert L.
Gegios, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Andrew Ennis, Anna K. Milunas,
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent
Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett,
McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals,
Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D.
McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC,
Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck,
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein &
Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro
hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein
Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew
Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy &
Bacon.

Northwest Missouri State University, Plaintiff, represented by Amy
Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna K.
Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord
LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D.
Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable
Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary
D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker
L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Aquila, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles A. Moore, Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP, Khai LeQuang, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
pro hac vice, Martin M. Loring, Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, Martin,
William Molinski, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank.

Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., Cantera Resources, Inc., CMS Energy
Resources, Defendants, represented by Mark E. Haddad, Sidley
Austin LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

CMS Energy Resources Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Mark E. Haddad, Sidley Austin LLP, Michelle B. Goodman, Sidley
Austin LLP, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Steven
A. Ellis, Goodwin Procter LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP,
Joel B. Kleinman, Blank Rome LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank & Stacy L. Williams, Locke Lord LLP.

CMS Enterprises Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank.

Coral Energy Resources, LP, Defendant, represented by Bruce A.
Schultz, D. Neal Tomlinson, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., James Richard
Eiszner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Lori Renee Schultz, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Joel B. Kleinman, Blank Rome
LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank & Stacy L. Williams, Locke
Lord LLP.

Dynegy Holding Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Michael J. Kass, VLP Law Group LLP, Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Douglas R. Tribble, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank.

Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by David T.
Moran, Jackson Walker LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Kevin Wieser, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Douglas R. Tribble, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Edwin M. Buffmire, Jackson Walker LLP,
Michael J. Kass, VLP Law Group LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

El Paso Tennesse Pipeline Company, Defendant, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Encana Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruno W. Katz,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Bradley C. Weber,
Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank.

Encana Energy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank.

EPNG Mojave, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley C. Weber,
Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank.

Mojave Pipeline Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank.

Mojave Pipeline Operating Company, Defendant, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Oneok, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Len Bryant,
GableGotwals, Oliver S. Howard, Gable & Gotwals, Amelia A.
Fogleman, Gable & Gotwals, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Craig
A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, pro hac vice, Joel B. Kleinman,
Blank Rome LLP, John Henry Rule, Gable & Gotwals, Mark R. Robeck,
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Mason G. Patterson, Mason G. Patterson,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank & Stacy
L. Williams, Locke Lord LLP.

Sempra Energy Corp., Defendant, represented by J. Randall Jones,
Harrison, Kemp & Jones, LLP, Richard P. Levy, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, William R. Urga, Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little,
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

WD Energy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank.

West Coast Power LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas R.
Tribble, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, John M. Grenfell,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Michael J. Kass, VLP Law
Group LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Williams Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent
Dwerlkotte, Shook Hardy & Bacon, John Ryan McCambridge, Shook
Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Stacey R. Gilman, Berkowitz,
Oliver, Williams, Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Steven D. Soden, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, pro hac vice, Tammy Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP,
pro hac vice, Thomas P. Schult, Berkowitz, Oliver, Williams, Shaw
& Eisenbrandt, LLP, Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon,
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable
Gotwals, pro hac vice, Joel B. Kleinman, Blank Rome LLP, Mark R.
Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank & Stacy L. Williams, Locke Lord LLP.

Aquila Merchant Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
A. Moore, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Khai LeQuang, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Martin M. Loring, Blackwell,
Sanders, Peper, Martin, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, William Molinski,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord
LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

OneOK Energy Services Company, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Amelia A. Fogleman, Gable & Gotwals, David Len Bryant,
GableGotwals, Oliver S. Howard, Gable & Gotwals, Thomas F. Reese,
Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Craig
A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, pro hac vice, Joel B. Kleinman,
Blank Rome LLP, John Henry Rule, Gable & Gotwals, Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank & Stacy L.
Williams, Locke Lord LLP.

CMS Energy Corp., Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP.

Cantera Gas Company, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP.

CMS Energy Resources Management Co., Defendant, represented by
Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP.

e prime, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Bissett, McKool
Smith Hennigan, P.C. & Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, pro hac vice.

e prime Energy Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay
Kevin Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

El Paso LLC (f/k/a El Paso Corporation), Defendant, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Diane R. Hazel,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan
Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

El Paso Marketing Company, L.L.C. (f/k/a El Paso Marketing, L.P.
and El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P.), Defendant, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Diane R. Hazel,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark
R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein &
Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas.

Centerpoint Energy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark
R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Travis Cushman, pro hac vice,
Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan,
P.C., Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D.
McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Ryan
Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, Travis Cushman, pro hac vice, Anna K. Milunas,
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Diane
R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan Matthew
Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

e prime Energy Marketing Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Anna K. Milunas, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel,
Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas.

CMS Energy Resources Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Diane R. Hazel,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark
R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A.
Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D.
McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan Matthew
Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

CMS Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D.
McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M.
Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel,
Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas.

Cantera Gas Company, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Diane
R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel
LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

CMS Energy Resources Management Co., Defendant, represented by
Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Diane R. Hazel,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark
R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Ryan
Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister
& Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Joshua
D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Ryan Matthew Billings,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC,
Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Roxanna A. Manuel,
Kupferstein Manuel LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas.

CMS Energy Resources Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas.

CMS Field Services Inc., Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

CMS Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

Cantera Gas Company, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

CMS Energy Resources Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas.

CMS Field Services Inc., Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

CMS Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

Cantera Gas Company, Defendant, represented by Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

The Williams Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas.

Williams Merchant Services Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas.

Williams Gas Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas.

Carthage College, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Robert L. Gegios, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Briggs and Stratton Corporation, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Jay Kevin Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Robert L. Gegios, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Andrew
Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan,
P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer,
III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Northern States Power Company, Consol Defendant, represented by
Jay Kevin Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Centerpoint Energy Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Jay
Kevin Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Reginald D. Steer, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith Hennigan,
P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joel B. Kleinman,
Blank Rome LLP, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,
Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck,
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, S.C., Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel
LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew
Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy &
Bacon.

Reliant Resources, Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by D. Neal
Tomlinson, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Jay Kevin Wieser, Jackson Walker
L.L.P., Travis Cushman, pro hac vice, Anna K. Milunas, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Clerk Jeffery N. Luthi, Interested Party, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz,
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph
A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Objector, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Carolyn K. Foley, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP,
Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister
& Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer
Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker
L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Mark R.
Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C., Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC,
Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin
Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP,
Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.


MERCK & CO: 1,370 Propecia/Proscar Suits Pending as of Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that approximately
1,370 lawsuits have been filed over persistent sexual side effects
following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability
lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar.
As of September 30, 2016, approximately 1,370 lawsuits have been
filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have experienced
persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment
with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 50 of the plaintiffs
also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause
prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer. The
lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state
court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated
for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before
Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matters
pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before
Judge Mayer in Middlesex County.

In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in
Massachusetts and one matter pending in state court in New York.

The Company says it intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: 285 Femur Cases Pending in Cal. State Ct. at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2016, approximately 285 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state
court, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

As of September 30, 2016, approximately 285 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state
court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur
Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single
judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and
Judge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated
proceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10
discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and
subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs
selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began in February
2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor in April
2015, and plaintiff has appealed that verdict to the California
appellate court.  The next Femur Fracture trial in California that
was scheduled to begin in April 2016, was stayed at plaintiffs'
request and a new trial date has not been set.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: 2,940 Femur Cases Pending in New Jersey State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that approximately 2,940 cases
alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court
as of September 30.

As of September 30, 2016, approximately 2,940 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are
pending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The
parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed
through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to
be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013
and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be
reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July
2015, and Merck has recently begun selecting the next group of
cases to be reviewed through fact discovery.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: 4,310 Fosamax-Related Cases Pending as of Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2016, approximately 4,310 cases are filed and
pending against Merck & Co., Inc., alleging product liability
relating to Fosamax, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of September 30,
2016, approximately 4,310 cases are filed and pending against
Merck in either federal or state court. In approximately 20 of
these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequent
to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental
implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of
Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,290 of these
actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures
and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with
the use of Fosamax.

Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax ONJ MDL)
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200
plaintiffs. In July 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ
Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level of $27.3
million since the participation level was approximately 95%. Merck
has fully funded the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and the
escrow agent under the agreement has been making settlement
payments to qualifying plaintiffs. The ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: Defends 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Product User Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., has been served, as of September 30, 2016,
approximately 1,140 product user claims alleging generally that
use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic
cancer and other injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of September 30, 2016,
approximately 1,140 product user claims have been served on Merck
alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the
development of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These
complaints were filed in several different state and federal
courts.

Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict
litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies
Products Liability Litigation" (MDL). The MDL includes federal
lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following
medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of
which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies.
The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California
State Court). As of September 30, 2016, nine product users have
claims pending against Merck in state courts other than the
California State Court.

In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court -- in
separate opinions -- granted summary judgment to defendants on
grounds of preemption. Of the approximately 1,140 served product
user claims, these rulings resulted in the dismissal of
approximately 1,100 product user claims.

Plaintiffs are appealing the MDL and California State Court
preemption rulings.

In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed, as
of September 30, 2016, to toll the statute of limitations for
approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to
continue defending against these lawsuits.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: Defends International Vioxx Suits in Brazil & Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend litigation relating to
Vioxx in Brazil and Europe, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

As previously disclosed, Merck has been named as a defendant in
litigation relating to Vioxx in Brazil and Europe (collectively,
the Vioxx International Lawsuits). The litigation in these
jurisdictions is generally in procedural stages and Merck expects
that the litigation may continue for a number of years.

The Company says it has established no other liability reserves
for, and believes that it has meritorious defenses to, the Vioxx
International Lawsuits and will vigorously defend against them.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Currently Ongoing in Femur Fractures MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the multidistrict litigation alleging
Femur Fractures, Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Cases Alleging Femur Fractures

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML
seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May
2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur
Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict
litigation in the District of New Jersey (the Femur Fracture MDL).
Judge Pisano presided over the Femur Fracture MDL until March
2015, at which time the Femur Fracture MDL was reassigned from
Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson following Judge Pisano's
retirement. In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur
Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in
Merck's favor. In addition, in June 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL
court granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in
the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim
was preempted by federal law.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order
requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why
those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took
place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based
on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to
the show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court
dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption
grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases are
appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. The Femur Fracture MDL court has since dismissed without
prejudice another approximately 540 cases pending plaintiffs'
appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. On June 30,
2016, the Third Circuit heard oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal
of the preemption ruling and the parties await the decision.

In addition, in June 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary
judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's
updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical
femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck
adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor
have appealed Judge Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. In
August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano
enter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur
Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate
and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause
why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court's
preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November
2014, the court granted Merck's motion and entered the requested
show cause order.

As of September 30, 2016, three cases were pending in the Femur
Fracture MDL, excluding the 515 cases dismissed with prejudice on
preemption grounds that are pending appeal and the 540 cases
dismissed without prejudice that are also pending the
aforementioned appeal.

Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts
where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to
defend against these lawsuits.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: Has Resolved All Vioxx-Related Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that it has resolved all of the
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits through settlements.

As previously disclosed, in addition to the Vioxx Product
Liability Lawsuits, various putative class actions and individual
lawsuits were filed against Merck and certain former employees
alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making alleged material misstatements and omissions with respect
to the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx (Vioxx Securities Lawsuits).
The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits were coordinated in a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. As previously disclosed,
Merck has reached a resolution of the Vioxx securities class
action for which a reserve was recorded in 2015 and under which
Merck created a settlement fund in 2016 of $830 million (the
Settlement Class Fund) and agreed to pay an additional amount for
approved attorneys' fees and expenses up to $232 million (the
Fee/Expense Fund).

On June 28, 2016, the court approved the settlement and awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $222 million; the
remaining amount of the Fee/Expense Fund will be added to the
Settlement Class Fund. The Company paid the total settlement
amount into escrow in April 2016. After available funds under
certain insurance policies, Merck's net cash payment for the
settlement and fees was approximately $680 million. The settlement
covers all claims relating to Vioxx by settlement class members
who purchased Merck securities between May 21, 1999, and October
29, 2004. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and, as
part of the settlement agreement, defendants continue to deny the
allegations.

In addition, Merck has reached a resolution of the above
referenced individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign and
domestic institutional investors, which were also consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.

As a result of these settlements, Merck has resolved all of the
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.

Insurance

As a result of the previously disclosed insurance arbitration, the
Company's insurers paid insurance proceeds of approximately $380
million in connection with the settlement of the class action. The
Company also has Directors and Officers insurance coverage
applicable to the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits with remaining stated
upper limits of approximately $145 million, which the Company has
not received. There are disputes with the insurers about the
availability of the Company's Directors and Officers insurance
coverage for these claims. The amounts actually recovered under
the Directors and Officers policies discussed in this paragraph
may be less than the stated upper limits.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: Seeks Summary Judgment in K-DUR Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the K-DUR Antitrust Litigation filed motions to
exclude certain expert opinions and the Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment, Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

As previously disclosed, in June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-
Plough Corporation (Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation
with Upsher-Smith, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc.
(Lederle), respectively, relating to generic versions of Schering-
Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by
cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed
Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). Following the
commencement of an administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects
from those settlements (which was resolved in Schering-Plough's
favor), putative class and non-class action suits were filed on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against
Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in
a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federal
and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and
common law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages.

In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their
case. In March 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment
to the defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed the
matter in its entirety. In July 2012, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings. At the same time,
the Third Circuit upheld a December 2008 decision by the District
Court certifying certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.

In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit's
decision. In June 2013, the Supreme Court granted that petition,
vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remanded the case
for further consideration in light of its decision in FTC v.
Actavis, Inc. That decision held that whether a so-called "reverse
payment" -- i.e., a payment from the holder of a pharmaceutical
patent to a party challenging the patent made in connection with a
settlement of their dispute -- violates the antitrust laws should
be determined on the basis of a "rule of reason" analysis. In
September 2013, the Third Circuit returned the case to the
District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the
Actavis standard.

In April 2015, the Company filed motions for summary judgment. On
February 25, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion
for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers'
claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment relating to all of the
direct purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Lederle.

In anticipation of trial, which is expected to occur in the spring
of 2017, the parties on October 31, 2016, filed motions to exclude
certain expert opinions and defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


MERCK & CO: Has Deals to Settle Vioxx Suits in Alaska, Montana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., has recently reached agreements with the
Attorneys General in Alaska and Montana to settle their state
consumer protection act cases related to Vioxx for $15.25 million
and $16.7 million, respectively, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

Merck was a defendant in a number of putative class action
lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of
Vioxx, all but one of which have been settled. Under the
settlement, Merck agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve all
properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs
and certain other administrative expenses. The claims review
process has been completed with the Company paying approximately
$700,000. The amount of attorneys' fees to be paid is yet to be
determined.

Merck is also a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Attorney
General of Utah. The lawsuit is pending in Utah state court. Utah
alleges that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seeks
damages and penalties under the Utah False Claims Act. No trial
date has been set. Merck recently reached agreements with the
Attorneys General in Alaska and Montana to settle their state
consumer protection act cases against the Company for $15.25
million and $16.7 million, respectively. As a result, Alaska's
action was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2016, and
Montana's action was dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2016.

The Company says it has an immaterial reserve with respect to
certain Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits. The Company has
established no other liability reserves for, and believes that it
has meritorious defenses to, the remaining Vioxx Product Liability
Lawsuits and will vigorously defend against them.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company offers therapeutic and preventive agents to treat
cardiovascular, type 2 diabetes, asthma, nasal allergy symptoms,
allergic rhinitis, chronic hepatitis C virus, HIV-1 infection,
fungal infections, intra-abdominal infections, hypertension,
arthritis and pain, inflammatory, osteoporosis, male pattern hair
loss, and fertility diseases.


METLIFE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pension Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted in part and denied, in part, the
motions to dismiss the third amended complaint in the case
captioned CITY OF WESTLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. METLIFE, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 12-cv-0256
(LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).

The case was brought by Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Areas Pension Fund on behalf of an alleged class of "all
purchasers of the common stock of MetLife, Inc. . . . between
February 2, 2010 and October 6, 2011, inclusive," and "all persons
who purchased or acquired MetLife common stock pursuant or
traceable to [MetLife's] August 3, 2010 public offering of 75
million shares of its common stock and MetLife's March 4, 2011
public offering of 68.5 million shares of its common stock,
respectively".  Central States allegedly purchased shares of
MetLife common stock on August 3, 2010, March 3, 2011, and March
4, 2011.

The principal issue in the putative class action is "whether
MetLife misled investors (1) with respect to its financial
performance and position because certain reserves underlying its
financial statements failed adequately to take account of incurred
but not reported (IBNR) death benefit claims with respect to group
life insurance policies, and (2) by making allegedly deceptive
statements concerning those reserves."

In an opinion dated September 11, 2015, the Court granted in
substantial part the defendants' motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  It dismissed all of Central States' Exchange
Act claims -- most for failure to plead an actionable
misrepresentation or omission and some for failure to plead
scienter.  It dismissed all of Central States' claims under
Section 12 of the Securities Act and substantially all of Central
States' claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, the
latter for failure to plead an actionable misrepresentation or
omission.  It upheld Central States' Sections 11 and 15 claims to
the extent they were "based upon the alleged misstatements of
mortality ratios."

Central States filed a third amended complaint with its one
substantial new allegation -- that the 2007 SSA-DMF cross-check
revealed a $25 million reserve shortfall.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the TAC.

Judge Kaplan granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the third
amended complaint to the extent that (1) all claims under the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, (2) all claims under Section 12 of
the Securities Act, and (3) all claims under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act except those based upon (a) MetLife's alleged
omission of material facts about its inquiry into or knowledge
concerning its implicit representations about the adequacy of the
Company's IBNR reserves, and (b) MetLife's alleged omission of
material facts about the pending state investigations are
dismissed.  Judge Kaplan denied the motions to dismiss in all
remaining respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Kaplan's November 10, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/CqG5Ps from Leagle.com.

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Lead
Plaintiff, represented by Armen Zohrabian --
azohrabian@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, David W. Hall -- dhall@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David Avi Rosenfeld --
drosendfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Shawn Anthony Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Darren J. Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel Howard Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn
Anthony Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Thomas C.
Michaud, pro hac vice.

Metlife, Inc., C. Robert Henrikson, William J. Wheeler, Peter M.
Carlson, Steven A. Kandarian, William J. Mullaney, Defendants,
represented by Elliot Greenfield -- egreenfield@debevoise.com --
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP & Maeve L. O'Connor --
mloconnor@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Eduardo Castro-Wright, Cheryl W. Grise, R.
Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., James M.
Kilts, Catherine R. Kinney, Hugh B. Price, David Satcher, Kenton
J. Sicchitano, Lulu C. Wang, Defendants, represented by Maeve L.
O'Connor, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP.

Goldman Sachs & Co., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Bank of America
Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc., Defendants, represented by Timothy E.
Hoeffner -- timothy.hoeffner@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP &
John J. Clarke, Jr. -- john.clarke@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US
LLP.


MICHIGAN: Asks Court to Dismiss Suit Over Educational System
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Chambers, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
attorneys for Gov. Rick Snyder and state education officials say
no fundamental right to literacy exists for Detroit schoolchildren
who are suing the state over the quality of their education.

The lawyers are asking a federal judge to reject what they call an
"attempt to destroy the American tradition of democratic control
of schools."

Timothy J. Haynes, an assistant attorney general, made those
statements in a 62-page motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against
Gov. Snyder and state education leaders in September by seven
Detroit children who allege decades of state disinvestment and
deliberate indifference to the city schools have denied them
access to literacy.

The motion was filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Mr. Haynes says claims laid out by plaintiffs -- including
deplorable building conditions, lack of books, classrooms without
teachers, insufficient desks, buildings plagued by vermin, unsafe
facilities and extreme temperatures -- go far beyond mere access
to education.

"(They) ask this court to serve as a 'super' Legislature tasked
with determining and dictating educational policy in every school
district and school building throughout the United States where an
illiterate child may be found," the response says.

"Such a path would effectively supersede democratic control by
voters and the judgment of parents, allowing state and federal
courts to peer over the shoulders of teachers and administrators
and substitute court judgment for the professional judgment of
educators."

The Detroit schoolchildren, represented by a California public
interest law firm, sued state officials Sept. 13 in what legal
observers say is an unprecedented attempt to establish that
literacy is a U.S. constitutional right.

The suit claims the state has functionally excluded Detroit
children from the state's educational system.  It seeks class-
action status and several guarantees of equal access to literacy,
screening, intervention, a statewide accountability system and
other measures.

Attorneys representing the students say the filing highlights
shocking problems in some Detroit schools and is the first of its
kind in the nation that seeks to secure students' legal right to
literacy under the 14th Amendment.

The state is asking U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III to
dismiss the case, saying the U.S. Supreme Court and Michigan
courts do recognize the importance of literacy, but reject claims
it is a legal right.

"But as important as literacy may be, the United States Supreme
Court has unambiguously rejected the claim that public education
is a fundamental right under the Constitution.  Literacy is a
component or particular outcome of education, not a right granted
to individuals by the Constitution," Mr. Haynes says.

In his motion, Mr. Haynes denies the state of Michigan has been
responsible for the operation of the schools in Detroit since
1999, which is alleged in the lawsuit, and says the state does not
operate or control public schools in Detroit.

"Contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, the 'state' never ran any of
the schools, although emergency managers have been appointed to
supplant local authority, where necessary," Mr. Haynes says.

DPS has been under the control of a state-appointed emergency
financial manager since 2009.  Emergency Manager Steven Rhodes is
scheduled to step down on Dec. 31 and a newly elected Board of
Education begins its work on Jan. 1.

Kathryn Eidmann, staff attorney for Public Counsel, which is
representing the schoolchildren, said the state's response was
disappointing and did not come as a surprise.

What Ms. Eidmann says she found interesting was: the 62-page
motion ignored the grim reality Detroit schoolchildren face every
day inside classrooms.

"There is no mention about the fact that hardly any of the
students have access to teachers or books.  These are schools
where no state officials or state lawyer would send their child,"
she said.

DPS has struggled for years with declining enrollment,
comparatively low test scores and spending scandals that have left
students without needed supplies.

A $617 million aid package approved by lawmakers this summer
relieved the district of nearly a half-billion dollar debt and
provided $150 million in startup funding for a new, debt-free
Detroit Public Schools Community District.

The plaintiffs are students at four of the lowest-performing
schools at the Detroit Public School Community District: Hamilton
Academy; Medicine and Community Health Academy at Cody; Osborn
Collegiate Academy of Mathematics, Science and Technology; and
Osborn Evergreen Academy of Design and Alternative Energy.

One plaintiff is a former student at Experiencia Preparatory
Academy, a privately operated charter school that closed in June.

The lawsuit is asking the court to order the state to provide
relief that includes "appropriate, evidence-based literacy"
instruction at all grade levels and to address physical school
conditions that impair access to literacy.

Judge Murphy is expected to hear motions from both Public Counsel
and the state in February to decide whether the case moves
forward.


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Schwartz" Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELI SCHWARTZ on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, AND ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06557-MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 27,
2016), seeks to recover statutory damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment, attorney fees and costs caused by
Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
(FDCPA) which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive
deceptive and unfair practices.

Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' collection practices
violate the FDCPA. Such collection practices include, inter alia:
(a) leaving messages for consumers, which fail to provide
meaningful disclosure of Defendants' identity; (b) leaving
messages for consumers, which fail to disclose that the call is
from a debt collector; and (c) leaving messages for consumers,
which fail to disclose the purpose or nature of the communication
(i.e. an attempt to collect a debt).

Midland Credit is engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts on behalf of Midland Funding, LLC as
one of its principal areas of business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Various False Advertising Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it is defending
various false advertising putative class actions.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various false
advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney
general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy(R)
brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised
benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the
products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain
caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster
Energy(R) brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain
one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness,
injury or death.

In connection with these product safety allegations, the
plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate
warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently
specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or
adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy
drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain
ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with
other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure,
palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or
that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these
allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state
consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and
false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees and, in some cases, injunctive relief.

The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no
merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time
to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual
property litigation and claims from terminated distributors.

Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company,
management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will
likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.

Based in Corona, California, Monster Beverage Corporation is a
holding company and conducts no operating business except through
its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company's subsidiaries
primarily develop and market energy drinks as well as Mutant(TM)
Super Sodas.  The Company and its subsidiaries develop, market,
sell and distribute energy drink beverages, sodas and concentrates
for energy drink beverages, primarily under several brand names,
including Monster Energy(R), Nalu(R), Monster Rehab(R), NOS(R) and
Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R).


MOTION PICTURE: Judge Dismisses 'R' Rating SLAPP Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Herbers of Washington Legal Foundation, in an article for
Forbes.com, reports that a California federal judge dismissed a
putative class-action lawsuit designed to force the
Classifications and Rating Administration (CARA) to give an "R"
rating to any film containing tobacco use.  Alleging that around
200,000 young people would start smoking every year after seeing
tobacco use in G, PG, and PG-13 rated movies, the plaintiff in
Forsyth v. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. sued the
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) (CARA is operated as
a division of the association), the National Association of
Theater Owners, and various major movie studios.  Because
injunctive relief alone isn't enough in most class actions, the
complaint also sought $20 million in damages.

Searching for a cause of action, the plaintiff used a spaghetti-
against-the-wall approach, pleading, among other claims,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, false advertising, and private and public
nuisance.  The crux of his argument is that as of at least 2003,
the defendants knew that children's exposure to tobacco use in
films rated under R is "one of the major causes of children
becoming addicted to nicotine."  Therefore, the defendants
breached duties, made misrepresentations, committed false
advertising, and caused a nuisance by failing to rate any film
with tobacco use lower than R.  As a direct result, the complaint
alleges that the defendants "recruited" 4.6 million American
children to smoke since 2003, which will inevitably cause 1.5
million tobacco-induced deaths.  Therefore, the defendants must
pay.  The complaint does not, however, explain how an R-rating
would actually prevent children from seeing tobacco use in films
-- many children under the age of 17 watch R-rated films, and any
movie rated before the lawsuit would be unaffected (unless the
plaintiff's next action would be an attempt to force MPAA to
change its ratings for past movies, like Peter Pan and 101
Dalmatians).

Fortunately, the court was able to see through the complaint's
wild assertions, granting both of the defendants' motions to end
the lawsuit, a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the
complaint under California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against
Public Participation (SLAPP) statute.  Under anti-SLAPP statutes,
if the defendant can demonstrate that the lawsuit arose from an
act in furtherance of its First Amendment-protected speech, the
plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the
merits.  As the court explained, because film ratings are an
expression of an opinion about the nature of the film, and not a
"certification trademark" as the plaintiff argued, ratings are
considered speech under the First Amendment.  Further, even if the
ratings themselves weren't considered speech, they clearly further
the First Amendment rights of the movie's creators.

The court then determined whether the plaintiff sufficiently
supported his claims to survive the motions to strike and dismiss
-- the California anti-SLAPP statute's standard of proof is
similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).
Addressing each claim in turn, the court quickly and efficiently
pointed to their shortcomings: for example, the defendants'
ratings could not be misrepresentations because they were
opinions, the defendants had no duty to breach, and any alleged
"nuisance" did not affect the plaintiff's real property rights.
Therefore the court granted both of the defendants' motions,
halting the case.

However, the case could continue.  While calling the chance
"remote," the court did allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint
to cure its many defects.  In addition, the plaintiff has the
opportunity to appeal the district court's decision to the class-
action-friendly US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Should
the plaintiff opt to appeal, the Ninth Circuit should view the
case for what it is -- a desperate attempt by one man to impose
his morality on the film industry -- and affirm the district
court.


NAVIENT CORP: Blyden Appeals Dismissal of Suit to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Blyden appeals the dismissal of her putative class action
lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, The Bank of New York, and
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ("BNY Mellon").
The amended complaint, captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient
Corporation et. al., alleges that plaintiff and members of the
purported class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate above
that permitted under California law. Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint dropped SLM Corporation as a defendant, added various
securitization trusts as defendants, and added claims for
conversion and for money received. In July 2015, the Court granted
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint but
permitted Plaintiff to make certain amendments to the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint in August 2015 which
removed all of the Defendants except the SLM PC Student Loan 2003-
B Trust, BNY Mellon (in its capacity as a trustee), and Navient
Solutions, Inc.

The remaining defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint which was granted in February 2016. While the
court granted leave for Plaintiff to file a further amended
complaint, Plaintiff instead filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth
Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services in
the United States.  The Company operates in three segments:
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private
Education Loans, and Business Services.  the Company holds the
portfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under the
FFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans.  The
Company also provides asset recovery services for loans and
receivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and higher
education institutions, as well as federal, state, court, and
municipal clients; and business processing services on behalf of
municipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.


NAVIENT CORP: California Court Dismisses "Beechum" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit initiated by Jamie Beechum was
dismissed with prejudice, according to Navient Corporation's Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

Allegations similar to those asserted in the Ubaldi and Blyden
cases are also raised in a putative class action complaint
captioned Jamie Beechum, et al. v. Navient Solutions, Inc. filed
on October 21, 2015.

The plaintiffs in the cases allege that they were charged and/or
paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law.

In September 2016, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff's
period to appeal the ruling remains open.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to estimate a
range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be
payable in connection with either the Blyden or Beechum lawsuits.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services in
the United States.  The Company operates in three segments:
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private
Education Loans, and Business Services.  the Company holds the
portfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under the
FFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans.  The
Company also provides asset recovery services for loans and
receivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and higher
education institutions, as well as federal, state, court, and
municipal clients; and business processing services on behalf of
municipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.


NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Class Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit commenced by Randy Johnson alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and
federal consumer protection laws. On May 4, 2015, Randy Johnson
filed a putative action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, Randy Johnson v. Navient
Solutions, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). In July 2016, the District Court granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Company says it is unable at this point in time to anticipate
the timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the
legal proceedings may have on the consolidation financial
position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of
Navient Corporation and its affiliates.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services in
the United States.  The Company operates in three segments:
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private
Education Loans, and Business Services.  the Company holds the
portfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under the
FFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans.  The
Company also provides asset recovery services for loans and
receivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and higher
education institutions, as well as federal, state, court, and
municipal clients; and business processing services on behalf of
municipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.


NAVIENT CORP: Lord Abbett Amends Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Abbett Funds and other Plaintiffs have filed their amended
and consolidated complaint against Navient Corporation, its
officers and underwriters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

During the first quarter, Navient Corporation, certain Navient
officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient
securities offerings have been sued in several putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11,
2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February
16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v.
Navient Corporation, et al. (filed Feb. 26, 2016). On April 11,
2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel in
the lawsuits. The Court has consolidated the three pending cases
and appointed Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint on
September 28, 2016.

The Company says the Navient defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. At this stage in
the proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the timing of
resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the legal
proceedings may have on the consolidation financial position,
liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of Navient and its
affiliates.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services in
the United States.  The Company operates in three segments:
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private
Education Loans, and Business Services.  the Company holds the
portfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under the
FFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans.  The
Company also provides asset recovery services for loans and
receivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and higher
education institutions, as well as federal, state, court, and
municipal clients; and business processing services on behalf of
municipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.


NAVIENT CORP: "Ubaldi" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Tina M. Ubaldi remains pending
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative
class action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed prior
to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina
M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al. The plaintiff brought the
complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of other
similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees
that were proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law and
that Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging
daily interest on private educational loans. Following additional
amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under
California state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae,
Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC
Student Loan Trust 2004-A), plaintiff further amended her
complaint to provide for restitution of late charges and interest
paid by members of the putative class, injunctive relief,
cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as
permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among
other relief. Named defendants in the case are subsidiaries of
Navient and as such any liability arising from the Ubaldi
litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient
Corporation.

In December 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification with regard to claims concerning late fees, but
denied the motion as to the alleged usury claims. In March 2015,
the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the
complaint. The case is still pending.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to estimate a
range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be
payable in connection therewith.

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

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services in
the United States.  The Company operates in three segments:
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private
Education Loans, and Business Services.  the Company holds the
portfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under the
FFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans.  The
Company also provides asset recovery services for loans and
receivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and higher
education institutions, as well as federal, state, court, and
municipal clients; and business processing services on behalf of
municipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.


NESTLE PURINA: Judge Dismisses Beneful Dog Food Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
James Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that for years,
pet owners have been claiming that Nestle Purina's Beneful dog
food killed their dogs.  But a federal judge granted summary
judgment to Purina, throwing out a class action case for lack of
evidence.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said there was not sufficient
evidence that the pet food, rather than some other factor, was
responsible for the dogs' illnesses and deaths, Courthouse News
Service reported.

Purina said the ruling "confirms what millions of pet owners
already know -- that Beneful is a safe, healthy, and nutritious
dog food that millions of dogs enjoy every day."

The suit was filed in February 2015 by pet owner Frank Lucido,
whose English bulldog died and tests found his death "consistent
with poisoning." (Later tests, however, determined he died of a
heart tumor but Lucido remained a plaintiff in the case).

The suit claimed that an analysis of 28 samples revealed three
types of toxins: propylene glycol; mycotoxins, a fungal mold on
grain; and the heavy metals arsenic and lead.

"Poorly designed"
The level of toxins did not exceed limits permitted by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, an expert witness called by the
plaintiffs said.  Animal toxicologist Dr. John Tegzes said the FDA
limits are "poorly designed."  He said they are based on short-
term exposure and do not consider the effects of long-term usage.

Dr. Tegzes said that chronic exposure to the mycotoxins, heavy
metals, and glycols found in the food posed a "significant health
risk" to dogs and could adversely affect their health over time.

But Judge Chen rejected that conclusion, saying there was
insufficient evidence to support it.

"Dr. Tegzes's opinion is not reliable because the scientific
literature he invokes is either too speculative or too imprecise,"
Chen wrote in his 24-page ruling.  "Simply put, Dr. Tegzes cites
no epidemiological evidence that long-term exposure to mycotoxins
at levels below the limits set by the FDA leads to serious health
risks for dogs."


NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Action Over Tampered DWI Cases
------------------------------------------------------
S.P. Sullivan, writing for NJ Advance Media, reports that DWI
lawyers across New Jersey are sorting through a thicket of more
than 20,000 drunken driving cases potentially undermined by a
State Police sergeant accused of falsifying records.

Sgt. Marc Dennis, a coordinator in the State Police Alcohol Drug
Testing Unit, was criminally charged in September after a
supervisor reported the sergeant had skipped a legally required
step in re-calibrating three breath-testing devices used by local
police to check the blood-alcohol level of accused drunken
drivers.

Sgt. Dennis allegedly signed certifications claiming he had
performed the mandatory step, records show.  Such documents are
used in court to prove the accuracy of blood-alcohol readings.

Robert Ebberup, an attorney for the sergeant, said his client was
not guilty.

Since the issue came to light, state authorities have requested a
special judge be appointed to handle an expected glut of
challenges to seven years' worth of DWI convictions tied to the
officer.

Meanwhile, a Camden County attorney has filed a federal class
action lawsuit on behalf of defendants who were convicted based on
test results from machines Dennis maintained.

The controversy comes as another State Police lab in charge of
testing drug evidence is under scrutiny after one of its
technicians was accused of falsifying test results in a marijuana
case, bringing more than 15,000 drug convictions into question.

Records obtained by NJ Advance Media show prosecutors are now
working with the state court system to figure out how to handle an
even larger problem, with as many as 20,667 individual cases
across five counties affected by the criminal case against the
sergeant.

20,000 DWI cases brought into question after key calibration step
was skipped in breath testing, state says.

Sgt. Dennis was accused of foregoing a preliminary temperature
check required under state Supreme Court rules regarding the
calibration of the machines approved for breath-testing in New
Jersey, known as Alcotest devices.

Officials from the state Division of Criminal Justice, which
brought the charges against Sgt. Dennis, said in correspondence
obtained through a public records request that the temperature
check -- while legally required under a decision known as State v.
Chun -- is not scientifically necessary.

But DWI lawyers interviewed by NJ Advance Media say the sergeant
allegedly passed over a crucial step meant to ensure citizens
aren't convicted of drunken driving based on a faulty machine
reading.

"The science upon which the state obtained approval for the
Alcotest device relies on proper calibration," said Christopher
Baxter, a former municipal prosecutor who now represents clients
accused of DWI.  "Without proper calibration, the science behind
the device's accuracy falls apart."

New Jersey's DWI laws are unique in that drunken driving is
considered a motor vehicle offense rather than a criminal one, but
the penalties for a DWI conviction can be steep.

Are N.J.'s DWI laws tough enough?

Lawyers say DWI penalties hit drivers' wallets.  Victim advocates
want more restrictions

And importantly, those penalties can hinge on the level of
intoxication gauged by an Alcotest device.

For example, the threshold for driving under the influence in New
Jersey is a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent, but tougher
sanctions kick in for a driver who blows a .1 percent, making the
pin-point accuracy of so-called breathalyzer devices key for
sentencing.

That, DWI lawyers say, is where human oversight is vital.

"Coordinators (like Dennis) are very important, and it's about all
the citizen has to say the machine is working," said
Jeff Gold, a DWI lawyer who represented the New Jersey State Bar
Association in the landmark Supreme Court decision that
established the rules for breath-testing.  "Otherwise it's a
robot.  That calibration is necessary, and small differences
matter."

The State Police unit Dennis belonged to is in charge of
performing periodic calibrations of machines used by local police
departments to make sure they were taking accurate readings.
Dennis personally tested machines in in Middlesex, Monmouth,
Ocean, Somerset and Union counties, records show.

"When you give a breath sample, it's gone when you walk out of the
station.  They can't re-test it."

The accusations against the sergeant may bring the accuracy of any
device under his supervision into question, some lawyers say.

Already, challenges are piling up.

In an October 17 filing, Division of Criminal Justice Director
Elie Honig wrote to the justices of the state Supreme Court
regarding the case of a New Jersey woman who pleaded guilty to
drunken driving charges in Spring Lake municipal court.

The woman is seeking to withdraw her plea "on the grounds that
Dennis calibrated the Alcotest instrument on which she provided a
breath sample," Honig wrote.

The state prosecutor wrote that his office expected "many
additional legal challenges will be filed regarding breath test
results from Alcotest instruments that were calibrated by Dennis."

Later that month, a Cherry Hill attorney, Lisa J. Rodriguez, filed
a civil class-action lawsuit on behalf of an Ocean County
resident, Ashley Ortiz, who was convicted of drunken driving in
Wall Township last year.  According to court records, Ms. Ortiz
was initially pulled over for having a busted light above her
license plate, but subjected to a field sobriety test when the
officer detected the smell of alcohol.

An Alcotest later showed she had a blood-alcohol content of .09
percent, records show.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton,
Ms. Rodriguez wrote that those accused of drunken driving, faced
with the results of an Alcotest, "have little choice but to plead
guilty" mainly because such results are considered "indisputably
accurate."

The suit seeks civil damages on behalf of potentially thousands of
people convicted based on results from machines Dennis calibrated.

The universe of DWI cases possibly affected by the criminal case
against Sgt. Dennis may be large, prosecutors and defense
attorneys say, but the number of those who will successfully
overturn their convictions based on the scandal is likely far
lower.

For one, Sgt. Dennis was accused of skipping the temperature check
while recalibrating just three devices, which were used in two DWI
cases before being taken out of service.  So while the charges
bring into question any device he handled, it's unclear whether
the accusations amount to a few isolated cases or a systemic
problem.

Additionally, drunken driving is a unique offense in that some
convictions don't require objective testing at all.  An officer's
assertion, based on observations of a driver's behavior and the
results of a field sobriety test, can be enough to convict.

The Dennis case has echoes of another State Police scandal made
public this year.

In late December, Kamalkant Shah, a lab technician at the State
Police North Regional Laboratory in Little Falls, was accused of
faking a test result in a single marijuana case.  The disclosure
brought some 14,800 cases involving evidence Mr. Shah either
tested or performed peer review on into question.

A criminal investigation in that case is ongoing.

A Superior Court judge was appointed as a "special master" to
consolidate the glut of challenges to criminal convictions in the
drug lab case.  The state Attorney General's Office has made a
similar request in the Dennis case, which is still pending before
the Supreme Court.

In the Shah case, authorities re-tested many of the drug samples
to confirm they were, in fact, banned substances.  In a June
certification, an assistant attorney general said they had yet to
identify a case where a drug defendant was behind bars because of
a faulty test result.

But Mr. Baxter, the DWI lawyer, said the evidence against his
clients is often more ephemeral than crumbs of marijuana or a bag
of cocaine.

"With (the drug lab case), the state's reaction is, 'If we still
have the evidence, we'll retest it,'" Mr. Baxter said.  "When you
give a breath sample, it's gone when you walk out of the station.
They can't re-test it."


NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Santa Clara Pigment Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc.'s appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
filed by the county of Santa Clara remains pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that

"In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 we were served
with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of
California government entities against the former pigment
manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers.  The
County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for
funds the plaintiffs have expended or would in the future expend
for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other
costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint,
disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages.  In July 2003, the
trial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining
claims.  Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court
reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and
fraud claims in March 2006.  A fourth amended complaint was filed
in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County
Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and
Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego
and Oakland.  That complaint alleged that the presence of lead
paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting
jurisdictions and sought its abatement," the Company said.

"In July and August 2013, the case was tried.  In January 2014,
the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin Williams
Company and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and severally
liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and
ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the
people of the State of California to fund such abatement.  In
February 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial, and in March
2014 the court denied the motion.  Subsequently in March 2014, we
filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal
for the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with the
appellate court.  NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent
with California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and we
will defend vigorously against all claims."

"The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time
that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been
entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was
ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the
likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of
"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,
substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict
in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of
the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts
have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former
lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of
liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public
nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters
in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff
has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever
successfully been upheld)."

In addition, the Company says, liability that may result, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basis
on which an estimate of liability could be made. However, as with
any legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any appeal would
be successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcome
of the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur some
liability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingency
accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations, financial position and liquidity.

NL Industries, Inc., is primarily a holding company.  The Company
operates in the component products industry through its majority-
owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc.  The Company also owns
a non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.  CompX is a
manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of
applications and industries.  Kronos is a global producer and
marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments (TiO2).  TiO2 is
used for a variety of manufacturing applications including paints,
plastics, paper and other industrial and specialty products.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Lead Pigment Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it continues to
defend lawsuits arising from use of lead-based paints.

"Our former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments
for use in paint and lead-based paint.  We, other former
manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based
paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the Lead
Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage
and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-
based paints.  Certain of these actions have been filed by or on
behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, and certain others have been
asserted as class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims."

"The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the
defendants or the plaintiffs."

The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and it
intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and
liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.  The
Company does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any
liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases
to which it is a party, and liability to it that may result, if
any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because: (i)
the Company has never settled any of the market share, intentional
tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty,
conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, or statutory cases, (ii) no final, non-appealable
adverse verdicts have ever been entered against the Company, and
(iii) the Company has never ultimately been found liable with
respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases
over a twenty-year period for which the Company was previously a
party and for which it has been dismissed without any finding of
liability.

Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amounts for any of
the pending lead pigment and lead--based paint litigation cases
filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public
housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as
class actions. In addition, the Company has determined that
liability to it which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no
substantive information available upon which an estimate could be
based.

NL Industries, Inc., is primarily a holding company.  The Company
operates in the component products industry through its majority-
owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc.  The Company also owns
a non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.  CompX is a
manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of
applications and industries.  Kronos is a global producer and
marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments (TiO2).  TiO2 is
used for a variety of manufacturing applications including paints,
plastics, paper and other industrial and specialty products.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Files More Support on Bid to Toss SEPTA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., and other Defendants filed a
notice of subsequent event in further support of their motion to
dismiss Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's
second amended complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and
former directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-
3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated
March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of
March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class
certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees
and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA
was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff
on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's
March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all
of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all
defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions
to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument
on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the
pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on
April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States
Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v.
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all
defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under
either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within
30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint,
accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its
intention to stand on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second
amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the
proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or
similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The
proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown
Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of
internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and
financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation
of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court
granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its
second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by
March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016
Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case
(including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification)
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-
finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the
Commission. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on
September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the Commission resolving the
investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for
the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of
the settlement of the Commission's administrative proceedings and
pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, is former
Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer its Chief
Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the
Commission. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1
million. The Company had previously established a reserve for that
amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In
the settlement agreement with the Commission, the Company also
agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections
17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A)
and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated
thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the
Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the
settlement with the Commission. The Notice attached a copy of the
Commission's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the
Company believes are the most salient terms of the neither-admit-
nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response
to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the
Commission did not support dismissal of the second amended
complaint.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims. Given that the SEPTA
litigation is still in the pleading stage, it is not possible at
this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range
of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., is a bank holding company (that
has elected status as a financial holding company with the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) whose primary activity
consists of supervising its wholly-owned subsidiary, Orrstown
Bank.  The Company operates through its head office in
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.  The Bank provides services through
its network of 25 offices in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin,
Lancaster, and Perry Counties of Pennsylvania and in Washington
County, Maryland.


OTTAWA: Armed Forces Faces Sexual Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Canadian Armed Forces is rife
with sexual misconduct and harassment of women, according to a
proposed class action lawsuit that claims systemic gender- and
sexual orientation-based discrimination.

"Sexual misconduct and harassment is a deep-rooted problem in
Canadian military culture," Halifax-based lawyer Ray Wagner said
after filing a statement of claim against Ottawa with the Nova
Scotia Supreme Court.

"The accounts of rampant, routine sexual discrimination, bullying
and unwanted sexual advances against female members are
astonishing," he said.  "This frequent misconduct is part of a
troubling and deeply embedded culture that female members have
been forced to endure.  It's time to step back, acknowledge how
wrong it is, and take a stand against it."

The plaintiff in the case is Glynis Rogers, a 29-year-old former
member of the Canadian Armed Forces from Nova Scotia, but if the
case proceeds, the class could include any women who claim similar
treatment.

According to her statement of claim, Rogers joined the Canadian
Armed Forces in 2006, and says she was subjected to persistent and
systemic gender and sexual-orientation-based discrimination,
bullying and harassment by male members, particularly during
training.

She says female members were called names and treated as being
weaker and inferior to male members.

Ms. Rogers claims she was sexually assaulted by a male member at
Ontario's CFB Borden in Feb. 2012 but was reluctant to disclose
the incident to her superiors.

"Ms. Rogers . . . did not trust that the chain of command would
take her report seriously.  She knew of other female members who
had been sexually assaulted and had not reported the incidents due
to similar concerns about retaliation, being labelled as a
troublemaker, and receiving an inadequate and unreasonable
response," the statement of claim reads.

The document says she eventually reported the incident and the
male member was found guilty, but he later appealed and was
acquitted.

"She has suffered in a great way.  She suffered from post
traumatic stress, depression and was eventually discharged and
lost her career," Mr. Wagner said.

The claim alleges the Attorney General of Canada is vicariously
liable for the alleged misconduct.

A spokesperson confirmed the Canadian Armed Forces had been served
with the lawsuit, and said the government is deciding its "next
steps."

Mr. Wagner said it will likely be sometime next year before they
know if the class action suit will proceed.

He said it's hoped the case would change the culture within the
Armed Forces and give women a channel for reporting any abuse.

Mr. Wagner said an eventual case would seek damages, but the
amount wouldn't be determined until its known how many women
decide to be part of the class.

In a 2015 report, retired Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps
found bad behaviour was "endemic" in the military -- an
institution steeped in a macho culture that leaves women fearful
to report abuse.

At the time, the Canadian military said it acknowledged two key
findings in the report.  It agrees with Justice Deschamps that a
misogynistic, highly sexualized culture pervades the Canadian
military.  The military brass also concurred that eradicating that
culture will take a concerted effort from defence leadership.


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Dillard" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Platform Specialty Products Corporation awaits decision on its
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit pending in
Florida, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In March and April 2016, a class action lawsuit entitled Dillard
v. Platform Specialty Products Corporation, et al. and a
shareholder derivative action entitled Tuttelman v. Platform
Specialty Products Corporation, et al., respectively, were filed
against Platform, certain of its former and current executive
officers and, in the case of the derivative action, its directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging that the defendants made material false and misleading
statements relating to the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies in light of certain matters discovered and
reported by the Company itself in connection with a Company
internal investigation into certain past business practices of the
Company's Arysta West Africa business, as disclosed herein and in
the Annual Report. In June 2016, the shareholder derivative action
was dismissed by the Court.

In June 2016, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit, and in July 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint with an expanded class period but stating
substantially similar claims to those contained in the original
complaint.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages.

In September 2016, Platform filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint, which is fully briefed and currently pending before the
Court.

The Company believes this proceeding is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.

Platform Specialty Products Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
is a global, diversified producer of high-technology specialty
chemical products and provider of technical services.  The
Company's business involves the formulation of a broad range of
solutions-oriented specialty chemicals which are sold into
multiple industries, including agricultural, animal health,
electronics, graphic arts, plating, offshore oil and gas
production and drilling.


PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Defends 3 Suits Over RELISTOR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is defending three class action
lawsuits arising from its sales and promotional practices for
RELISTOR, according to Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that

In February 2011, the Company licensed its first commercial drug,
RELISTOR(R) (methylnaltrexone bromide) for the treatment of opioid
induced constipation ("OIC"), to Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. ("Valeant")). On July 19, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") approved RELISTOR Tablets for the treatment
of OIC in adults with chronic non-cancer pain, for which the
Company received a $50 million development milestone payment from
Valeant in the third quarter of 2016.

Under the Company's license agreement with Valeant, the Company is
dependent on Valeant for compliance with these regulatory
requirements as they apply to RELISTOR. Valeant's subsidiary Salix
disclosed that in February 2013 it received a subpoena from the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
requesting documents regarding its sales and promotional practices
for RELISTOR and certain of its other products, that it is
continuing to respond to the subpoena and intends to cooperate
fully with the subpoena and related government investigation,
which has and will continue to increase its legal expenses and
might require management time and attention. Salix subsequently
has become the subject of an SEC investigation and, beginning on
November 7, 2004, the target of three putative class action
lawsuits filed by shareholders of Salix.

Valeant has indicated that as of the filing of its report on Form
10-Q for the second quarter of 2016, it cannot predict the outcome
or the duration of the SEC investigation or any other legal
proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may
be imposed on Salix or Valeant arising out of the SEC
investigation. Accordingly, no assurance can be given as to
Valeant's financial condition or results of operations, or ability
to meet its royalty or milestone obligations to Progenics.

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develops innovative medicines for
targeting and treating cancer, with a pipeline that includes
several product candidates in later-stage clinical development.
These products in development include therapeutic agents designed
to precisely target cancer (AZEDRA(R) and 1095), and imaging
agents (1404 and PyLTM) intended to enable clinicians and patients
to accurately visualize and manage their disease.


QUANTUM ON THE BAY: Tenant Sues Over High Condo Move-in Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Nehamas, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a tenant
is suing a Miami condo association over its excessive application
and move-in fees, saying they violate state law.

The lawsuit is the first of several class-actions that attorneys
say they plan to file against condo associations over high fees.
In June, the Miami Herald reported that condo boards routinely
charge consumers hundreds of dollars more than state law allows.
Florida statute caps the amount condos can charge to apply and
move in at $100 per person.

In a suit filed on Nov. 18 in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court,
August Lasseter says he was billed $625 in non-refundable fees
when he signed a lease for a unit at one of the two high-rise
towers at Quantum on the Bay last year.  The charges broke down to
$100 for a background check, $175 for "administrative review,"
$125 for registration and $225 for move-in.

"I questioned it at the time, but it's not like you really have a
choice," said Mr. Lasseter, 37, who runs a modeling agency.  "They
say you pay it or you don't move in."

Attorneys for the board, which was highlighted in the Herald's
initial story as the condo with the highest fees, said they had
not yet been served and couldn't comment.

The Florida Condominium Act prohibits condo associations from
charging fees of more than $100 per applicant "in connection with
the sale, mortgage, lease, sublease, or other transfer of a unit."
(Married couples are considered one person and children are
exempt.)

Such fees are known as "transfer" fees because they concern the
transfer of a unit from one owner or tenant to another.

"It's shocking that associations are intentionally and knowingly
charging these fees when they are improper even after the public
attention from media coverage," said Aaron Resnick, an attorney
who is handling the suit.  "It's black-and-white.  The law can't
be any clearer on what you're allowed to do and what you're not
allowed to do. . . . Knowledgeable condo associations and property
management companies have been flouting the law for years. It's a
shame that it will take lawsuits to end this practice."

Mr. Resnick is working with South Florida attorneys Joshua Spector
and Jonathan Feldman to file more suits across the state.

"We've identified condo associations from Tallahassee to
Jacksonville and Orlando to Tampa, but Miami is the most
prevalent," he said.  "And we've found it's not just the expensive
condos that are doing this, it's across the board. The wrong is
the same, but the impact is even greater [on poorer residents]."

Mr. Lasseter's lawsuit says Quantum's fees also constitute a
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
It seeks to have Quantum pay damages and restitution to Mr.
Lasseter and those who join his claim, and asks a judge to stop
the association from charging more than $100.

Rents at the complex at 1900 N. Bayshore Dr. in Edgewater range
from $1,500 for a studio to $4,250 for a three-bedroom penthouse.

Overcharging

A Herald analysis of Realtor data this summer found that nearly
half of condos listed for sale or rent in Miami-Dade County asked
more than $100 in fees.  In Broward, 22 percent of condos charged
illegally high fees.  A search in November showed roughly the same
numbers.

Property management companies argue the law does allow for charges
of more than $100, if the charges come from a third party, not the
association.  And they say background checks have grown more
expensive since the cap was set in 1990.

But legal experts consulted by the Herald say the statute is clear
and associations are gouging applicants.  The Division of Florida
Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes confirmed that the $100
transfer cap is meant to include all non-refundable fees for
background checks, registration, move-in, pets, elevator usage and
other charges requested by condo boards and their representatives.

(The rules don't apply to homeowners' associations and rental
apartments.)

Background check companies told the Herald they usually charge
between $20 and $45 for individual tenant screening, and offer
discounts for bulk commercial accounts from condos.

But international clients can be significantly more expensive,
said Robert Sanchez, vice president of Miami-based United
Screening Services.  Checks on people from Russia and Latin
America, where many Miami condo buyers come from, can range as
high as $175, Sanchez said.

Even so, "the law is the law," said Stavros Mitchelides, the Miami
Beach Realtor who first alerted the Herald to the problem of
overcharging.  "If state law says the fee can't exceed $100 for a
single person or a married couple, then you shouldn't be able to
go around the law just to make money off of applications from
everyone else. I find it extremely disturbing."

The extra charges make it even more difficult for locals to find a
home in South Florida, already one of the nation's most expensive
housing markets.

Mr. Mitchelides says he repeatedly told the Miami Association of
Realtors about the problem but never heard back. (A spokeswoman
for the association said they did not have a record of being
contacted by Mr. Mitchelides.)

After the Herald's initial story came out, Jose Pazos, who runs a
prominent South Florida property management firm, disputed the
newspaper's findings in a Facebook video and said he would lobby
the Florida Legislature on the issue.


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Fekete" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management, LLC. The case is styled Moishe Fekete, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06554 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2016).

Receivables Performance is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVER RUN: Court Allow Fraud Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Nowina, writing for Global Compliance News, reports that
both of Canada's primary insolvency statutes, the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act ("BIA") and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act ("CCAA") provide for an automatic stay of all legal
proceedings when an insolvent debtor files for or seeks insolvency
protection.  The purpose of the stay is to provide breathing space
to a debtor attempting to restructure its business so as to avoid
"death by a thousand cuts" and also to ensure similarly situated
creditors are treated equally.  While it is an integral part of
Canada's insolvency regime, the stay of proceedings is not
inviolable and there have been a number of noteworthy cases where
Canadian courts have considered whether to lift the statutory stay
and permit proposed class actions to proceed where the plaintiff
has alleged fraud.

In a 2016 decision, Da Silva v. River Run Vistas Corp. 2016 ABQB
433 ("Da Silva"), the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench lifted a stay
to permit a proposed class action to proceed against two bankrupt
individuals who had been the officers, directors and shareholders
of companies developing real estate projects in the province of
Alberta.  The representative plaintiffs alleged that the proposed
class had lost approximately $14 million as a result of a
fraudulent real estate development scheme orchestrated by the
bankrupts through their companies.  Section 69.4 of the BIA
permits an affected creditor to apply to the court for a
declaration that the stay no longer operates in respect of that
creditor or person, and the court may make such a declaration,
subject to any qualification that the court considers proper if it
is satisfied:

   a. that the creditor or person is likely to be materially
prejudiced by the continued operation of those sections; or

   b. that it is equitable on other grounds to make such a
declaration.

In Da Silva, the representative plaintiffs' central argument was
that bankruptcy does not release a bankrupt from debts arising out
of fraud and therefore the proposed class action should be allowed
to proceed.  In assessing the parties' submissions, the motion
judge considered the requisite evidentiary threshold the court
will consider sufficient to lift a stay under the BIA and
concluded that, while the threshold is low and the plaintiffs need
not prove a prima facie case, they must make more than mere
allegations.  In this case, the motion judge lifted the stay in
light of the dramatic and unexplained reduction value in land
owned by the companies and certain financial transfers between the
defendants which were described as "suspicious".

However, an allegation of fraud will not automatically result in
the stay of proceedings being lifted especially where it might
negatively impact ongoing restructuring.  In Sino-Forest
Corporation (Re), 2012 ONSC 6275, an Ontario motion judge refused
to lift the stay of proceedings under the CCAA for a class action
seeking $9.18 billion in damages based on allegations that Sino-
Forest Corporation, some of its officers and directors, auditors
and underwriters made material misrepresentations regarding the
assets and operations of the corporation.  The motion judge
considered the applicable factors for lifting a stay set out in
Timminco Ltd., (Re) 2012 ONSC 2515 which focus on:

   a. the relative prejudice to the parties of lifting or
continuing the stay;

   b. the balance of convenience; and

   c. where relevant, the merits (i.e. if the proposed proceedings
has little chance of success, there may not be sound reasons for
lifting the stay).

The motion judge was persuaded that the defendants of the proposed
class action should remain focused on the restructuring and that
there would be little prejudice to the proposed class action
members if the stay was maintained while the restructuring process
was underway. Ultimately, once the restructuring process
concluded, the stay of proceedings was lifted and the Ontario
class action was certified in January 2015.

Key Takeaways

   -- Canadian courts will lift statutory insolvency stays of
proceedings in order to permit class actions to proceed.

   -- Proposed class action plaintiffs need not prove a prima
facie case, however they must make more than mere allegations of
fraud.

   -- While the test to lift a stay under the BIA or CCAA differs,
a significant consideration in either context that the courts will
consider is the prejudice a party would suffer if the stay is
lifted.

   -- Motions to lift the automatic stay may not be granted if it
is detrimental to an ongoing restructuring.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: 1st Circuit Sets Briefing in "Corban" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' appeal has been set by the
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the lawsuit titled
Corban v. Sarepta, et al., Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On January 27, 2014, and January 29, 2014, purported class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current or
former officers. The complaints were consolidated into a single
action (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) ("Corban") by
order of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded
28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to
bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that
purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10,
2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint
alleged that Sarepta and certain of its current or former officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to eteplirsen and sought damages in an
unspecified amount. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  On August
12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' April 30, 2015 motion
for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, and on
September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit on September 29, 2015.

On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's order denying leave to amend and dismissing the
case, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs' appeal was
stayed.  On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion.  On May
19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
judgment. The Court denied that motion on May 20, 2016. A briefing
schedule for the plaintiffs' appeal has been set by the First
Circuit.

The Company says an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., is a commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development
of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics for the treatment of rare
neuromuscular diseases.  The Company is primarily focused on
rapidly advancing the development of its potentially disease-
modifying Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD") drug candidates.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Kader's Bid to Further Amend Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to further amend the complaint in
the lawsuit captioned Kader v. Sarepta, et al., remains pending,
according to Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Another purported class action complaint was filed on December 3,
2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Kader v. Sarepta et al. 1:14-cv-14318) ("Kader"), asserting that
the Company and certain of its current or former officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on
March 20, 2015, alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the
sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an NDA for
eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based
on that data. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees.

On April 5, 2016, the Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to further amend the complaint, which Sarepta
opposed on April 22, 2016.  That motion remains pending.

The Company says an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., is a commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development
of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics for the treatment of rare
neuromuscular diseases.  The Company is primarily focused on
rapidly advancing the development of its potentially disease-
modifying Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD") drug candidates.


SOTHEBYS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Graham" Suit Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Estate of Robert Graham, et al.'s appeal from a court ruling
granting motion to dismiss the remaining claims in their action
remains pending, Sothebys said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion
to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the
Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is
preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the
plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss.
The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March
12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing
the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs
appealed this ruling.

On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court
decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional
insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of
California. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 11, 2016.

On April 12, 2016, the district court granted Sotheby's motion to
dismiss the remaining claims in the action, which relate to sales
that occurred in California. The plaintiffs have appealed this
decision.

Sotheby's is a global art business whose operations are organized
under two segments -- the Agency segment and the Finance segment.


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: "Ubaldi" Suit Remains Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Ubaldi, et al., remains
pending in California, according to Southwest Bancorp, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.  On March 26, 2014, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class;
however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to
redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23,
2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the
renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of
improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect
to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties,
which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its
appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action.  However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice").  Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB.  Bank SNB has substantial defenses with
respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately
made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend
against any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the
class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii)
the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made
by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees
charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that
will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi
Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might
prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us
for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that
Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot
estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a
result of the Ubaldi Case.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc., is a financial holding company for Bank
SNB, which has been providing banking services since 1894.
Through Bank SNB, the Company has 31 full-service banking centers
located primarily along the heavily populated areas on the I-35
corridor through Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and in Colorado.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., awaits final approval of a settlement
resolving the consolidated securities litigation in Minnesota,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended October 1, 2016.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in
Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second
complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. In
March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a
lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint
was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleading
representations made during the class period extending from
February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled
on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting
the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amended
complaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of
compensation in the second amended complaint. The Court granted
class certification on December 22, 2015.

On May 24, 2016, the parties agreed to resolve the case, pending
notification to class members and subject to court approval. Under
the settlement, the Company agreed to make a payment of $39.25
million to resolve all of the class claims and recorded a charge
of that amount during the second quarter of 2016.

On July 13, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. Concurrent with the recording of the
loss, the Company also recognized probable insurance recoveries of
$39.25 million. The hearing on final settlement approval was
scheduled for November 9, 2016.

St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s business is focused on the development,
manufacture and distribution of cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiovascular and atrial
fibrillation therapy areas, and interventional pain therapy and
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain and
movement disorders.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Four Class Suits Over Abbott Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., is defending four shareholder lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with Abbott Laboratories,
according to St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016.

On May 2, 2016, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Ramsey County, Minnesota, captioned
Silverman v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 62-CV-16-2872
alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the
Company and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) (the Proposed
Transaction). On May 26, 2016, a second action entitled Larkin v.
Starks, et al., 62-CV-16-3367, was filed in the same court
alleging substantially similar claims. On July 5, 2016, plaintiffs
in the two actions jointly filed an Amended Shareholder class and
Derivative Action Complaint (the Amended Complaint). Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint asserts that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by conducting a flawed sale process,
failing to maximize shareholder value, and publishing false or
misleading disclosure materials relating to the Proposed
Transaction, and that the Abbott defendants aided and abetted
those breaches. The Amended Complaint asserts direct and/or
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste
and abuse of control under Minnesota Statute Section 302A.467.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction and an order directing defendants to account to
plaintiffs for all damages allegedly suffered by the putative
class and damages allegedly incurred by the Company in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

On August 3, 2016, a third action entitled Gross v. Starks, et
al., 62-CV-16-4581, was filed in Ramsey County, Minnesota,
containing allegations similar to those in the Silverman Amended
Complaint. This action was consolidated with the two previously
filed actions. On June 30, 2016, a shareholder of the Company
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, captioned Rosenfeld
v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 16-cv-02275-WMW-FLN, alleging
that the Company and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9, and Minnesota
Statute Sections 80A.68 and 80A.76, and that the Company's
directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by filing a
Form S-4 with the SEC that contained false or misleading
statements regarding the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, if
consummated, an order rescinding it or awarding actual and
punitive damages to Plaintiff and the putative class.

The Company and its directors intend to vigorously defend against
the allegations in these actions involving the Proposed
Transaction. The Company believes that a material loss is remote.

St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s business is focused on the development,
manufacture and distribution of cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiovascular and atrial
fibrillation therapy areas, and interventional pain therapy and
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain and
movement disorders.


ST. PAUL, MN: Class Action Mulled Over Right-of-Way Assessments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Van Berkel, writing for Star Tribune, reports that
Chad Skally rifled through his folder of city assessments, pulling
out the corner properties: $1,814 for the Grand Avenue building he
was sitting in, $4,032 for another apartment complex he owns a
mile away.

He's done the comparisons.  He knows his annual bills for street
maintenance are at least twice that of neighbors who have similar
buildings in the middle of the block.  But whatever additional
benefit he is supposed to get for his money hasn't materialized,
Mr. Skally said.

"The system is obviously broken," he said.  "It's such a blatant
disparity."

Many St. Paul property owners say the city's right of way
assessment process, which is based on street frontage, is unfair.
Several attorneys have a stronger word for it: illegal.

Under state law, cities can only charge a fee for properties that
benefit from an improvement.  That is not what is happening in St.
Paul, residents and attorneys argue.  St. Paul assesses almost all
property owners every year and uses that money for street
maintenance, including tree trimming, snowplowing and litter
pickup.

Downtown churches initiated a lawsuit in 2011 over the assessment
process, which is headed to trial.  Other property owners plan to
bring a class-action suit against the city.

Meanwhile, Council Member Amy Brendmoen is pushing to change
another piece of the assessment process -- a little-known one that
she said unfairly burdens people who already struggle financially.

Residents who can't afford to pay their assessment outright can
finance it, but St. Paul charges an interest rate that includes an
"add-on finance charge" that goes to the city's Office of
Financial Services.  That's double-dipping, Ms. Brendmoen said,
because the city already collects an administrative fee on
assessments.

"We were basically harming people who did not have the ability to
self-finance their assessment," she said.

The add-on charges, like assessments, are more costly for people
who have a lot of property bordering streets.  Ms. Brendmoen said
that is not fair, which is the same argument made by attorneys and
residents who oppose the general assessment process.

"There are some similarities in the conversations," she
acknowledged, but she is pushing to change the add-on charge
independent of the broader debate.

St. Paul city staffers have created a work group to re-evaluate
the right of way assessment system.  That effort was prompted by a
Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in August that the city's
assessments are taxes, not fees.

"Assuming people want high-quality street maintenance services,
it's a matter of figuring out how best to create a system that the
most people view as the most fair," said City Attorney
Sammy Clark, a member of the group.

The City Council is scheduled to approve 2017 assessments in
December, but doesn't have to ratify them until next fall. Council
President Russ Stark said St. Paul could change the assessment
process in the middle of next year.

However, the city anticipates collecting $32.5 million in
assessment charges next year.  If council members do change the
process, they would have to figure out how to make up for it in
the budget.

Street frontage adds up

If the city doesn't alter its assessment process, a typical
homeowner can expect to pay $217.50 next year.  Given St. Paul's
gridded street system, most property owners' street frontage is
minimal.  But there are unusual lots, like Frank Gurney's on
Wheelock Parkway, which is bordered by three streets and billed at
$1,040.85 in 2017.

Mr. Gurney, a retiree on a fixed income, has a measured view of
his high assessments; he once worked for the city and served on
the Planning Commission.  He said the city has to pay for road
work somehow.

"Would I like to see it lower? Yes.  Do I think it should be
lower? I'm not so sure," Mr. Gurney said, adding that he wants to
see a plan to mitigate the costs.

"It's at the point where it should be discussed," he said.

Others, like Jennifer Elmquist, are adamant that change is needed.

Ms. Elmquist owns Jennifer's Wee Care, a day care center at the
corner of Pascal Street and Jefferson Avenue.  Her 2017 assessment
would be $1,345.80, according to city assessment rolls. Another
child care company, located in a home on the same block as
Jennifer's Wee Care, would pay $199.60.

"I don't get a benefit from being on a corner.  I would get the
same benefit from being in the middle of the block," Ms. Elmquist
said.

Ms. Elmquist said she would like to see the city use taxes, rather
than assessments, to pay for street maintenance.

"That's all they are -- another tax done in another way," she
said.

Mr. Skally, who owns seven apartment buildings across the city --
four of them on corner lots -- sent the city several suggestions
for ways to make assessments more equitable.

He would like charges to be based on a building's total square
footage, rather than the number of feet on the property that front
the street.  But after six years of fighting with the city over
assessments, he is not banking on lower costs next year.


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Jan. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., a national shareholder rights firm, on
Nov. 21 announced that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
StoneMor Partners L.P. ("StoneMor" or the "Company") common units
between January 19, 2012 and October 27, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 20,2017.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact either Brett D. Stecker or James M.
Ficaro of The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. at (610) 225-2677, or via e-
mail at bds@weiserlawfirm.com and jmf@weiserlawfirm, respectively.
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

StoneMor is the second largest owner and operator of cemeteries
and funeral homes in the United States.

The complaint charges StoneMor and certain of its current and
former officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, according to the Complaint,
StoneMor made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose during the Class Period: (1) that the Company's reported
non-GAAP financial metrics were materially misleading and
concealed the truth about the Company's actual financial
condition; and  (2) that the primary purpose of the Company's
regular debt and equity offerings were to pay distributions to
unitholders rather than to pay down indebtedness under the
Company's revolving credit facility as publicly stated.  As a
result, StoneMor's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
StoneMor common units during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is
represented by the Weiser Firm which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January
20, 2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain The Weiser Law
Firm, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. -- http://www.weiserlawfirm.com-- is a
national shareholder litigation firm.  The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.
is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.  Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is also listed as
counsel on this matter.


TERMINIX INT'L: Brief in "Eubank" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Mar 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFF EUBANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL,
INC., the Defendant - Appellant, Case No. 16-56760 (9th Cir, Nov.
25, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision in Case
No. 3:15-cv-00145-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2015).

Appellant Terminix International, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
March 3, 2017.

Appellee Jeff Eubank answering brief is due on April 3, 2017.

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

Plaintiff - Appellee JEFF EUBANK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741

Defendant - Appellant TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC. is represented
by:

          Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
          Paul E. Prather, Esq.
          Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4300


TOYOTA: 225,000 Steel Vehicle Frames Expected to Be Replaced
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Truett, writing for Automotive News, reports that as many
as 225,000 steel frames under Toyota Tacoma and Tundra pickups and
Sequoia SUVs may need to be replaced, says a lawyer who helped
settle a class-action lawsuit against Toyota over the frames'
potential for rusting.

The repair is an expensive, labor-intensive process that requires
nearly the complete disassembly of the vehicle.

The proposed legal settlement could cost Toyota as much as $3.4
billion for the repairs, according to court documents.

Several time-lapse videos on youtube.com show the job requiring as
many as four technicians and two service bays.  The repair can
take from almost two days to a week, depending on a dealer's
ability to put more than one technician on the job.

About 1.5 million vehicles are covered under terms of the proposed
settlement, which includes 2005-10 Tacoma midsize pickups, 2007-08
Tundra full-size pickups and 2005-08 Sequoia large SUVs.  Vehicles
are covered up to 12 years from the day of sale.

The frames, which lack adequate rustproofing, were supplied by
Dana Holding Corp. of Maumee, Ohio.  Photos of rust-damaged frames
show severe corrosion of the frame rails and the high-stress area
where the rear suspension leaf springs mount to the frame.

If the frame is rusted to the point where its strength is
compromised -- especially near the rear suspension mounts --
Toyota will pay for the dealer to install a replacement frame,
according to the proposed settlement.

"The ultimate size of the settlement depends on a number of
factors, including the valuation of the benefits offered under the
settlement.  Plaintiffs' counsel will have to explain how they're
reaching their valuation numbers," Toyota said in a statement.
"More important to us is that the agreement will deliver that
value to our customers."

Toyota officials declined to answer specific questions about frame
replacements, such as how long customers will have to wait, or
whether any of the body hardware, nuts, bolts and fasteners are
included in the repair.

"Probably about 15 percent of the frames that get inspected will
end up needing to be replaced," said Timothy Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- co-counsel with Blood Hurst & O'Reardon in
San Diego, one of three law firms in two states that successfully
sued Toyota.  "There are a lot of steps to it. And it is labor-
intensive," he said.

Replacing rusty frames will be costly for Toyota.  The frames come
in a variety of sizes and models, based on vehicle cab and
drivetrain configuration.

The Tacoma frame, for instance, has 11 versions, ranging in price
from $4,338 to $4,889.  But the labor for the repair could push
the total warranty bill per vehicle to $15,000 or more, according
to a Toyota dealer who has been replacing frames for several years
and asked not to be named.

Big job

Installing a new frame under a Tacoma, Tundra or Sequoia requires
the body to be separated from the old frame, which is usually done
on a service bay lift.  The pipes, wires, hoses and mechanical
connections for the vehicle's brake, cooling, fuel and electrical
systems have to be disconnected.

Once the body is off the old frame, the engine, transmission, rear
axle and front and rear suspension components, along with the fuel
tank and exhaust system, must be removed from the old frame and
installed on the new one.  Excessive rust and worn parts can
complicate this part of the job.

When these parts are installed on the new frame, the body is then
lowered onto it and the systems are reconnected and refilled.  All
four wheels need to be aligned and all systems checked and
inspected before the repair is finished.

Shop work

The first step is an inspection.  A technician at a northeastern
Toyota store, who said he was not authorized to speak for the
dealership and asked to remain anonymous, estimated that seven of
10 trucks that have come in for inspection need a frame
replacement.

He said the store's bills to Toyota for the repair average around
$15,000, but the total repair price is often higher.  Some
customers have been paying out of pocket for new shocks, brakes
and other wear items.

Before the proposed settlement, he said, the store was replacing
an average of three frames a week.

Toyota would not comment on specifics of the settlement, which is
being finalized.  But Mr. Blood said Toyota has agreed to offer
loaner vehicles to customers whose vehicles need new frames.  He
also said the proposed settlement covers Toyota owners nationwide
and in U.S. territories.

"That's important because people move," Mr. Blood said.  "And
their vehicle might still rust out.  If it needs a frame, it will
be replaced, no matter where they are."


TREEHOUSE FOODS: January 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm disclosed that a class
action lawsuit against TreeHouse Foods, Inc. ("TreeHouse" or the
"Company") (THS) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws between February 1, 2016 and November 2, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm in advance of the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, TreeHouse made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's private
label business and acquisition strategy were underperforming; that
Company overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and that as a
result of the above, TreeHouse's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was established by
Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles
dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.


UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Watchdog Says Sanctions Must Stand
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that a
Washington nonprofit that represents class members against unfair
class-action cases told the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that
sanctions should stand against five plaintiffs' attorneys who were
found to have abused the court system in their manipulation of a
controversial case.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness filed a 51-page friend of the court brief that said Chief
U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III was correct when he
issued the sanctions in August against the attorneys, including
John Goodson of Texarkana, who is the husband of a state Supreme
Court justice, because Holmes found that they acted in bad faith.

Judge Holmes found seven other plaintiffs' attorneys and three
defense attorneys involved in the class-action case had abused the
court system.  The attorneys said they didn't do anything wrong
and have appealed Judge Holmes' finding.

The case at the center of the matter was Adams v. United Services
Automobile Association, which concerned the method used to
calculate homeowners' insurance claims.  It was pending in Holmes'
court for 17 months until both sides agreed to dismiss it in June
2015.

The case was refiled the next day, with a class-action settlement
agreement attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where the
settlement was approved without any questions by Circuit Judge
Jerry Ryan.

The plaintiffs' attorneys' quickly received $1.85 million for
costs and attorneys' fees.  Only 4 percent of the class filed a
claim, which resulted in payments to the class members of less
than $300,000, the Center of Class Action Fairness said.

Judge Holmes, who didn't find out about the refiling of the case
until he read about it in a December 2015 edition of Arkansas
Business, called the maneuver improper "forum shopping" and said
he wouldn't have approved the settlement.

Ted Frank, director of the CEI's Center for Class Action Fairness,
said in the brief filed that Judge Holmes' order should be
affirmed.

The attorneys' "request for carte blanche to engage in secret
forum-shopping that prejudices absent class members runs afoul of
class counsel's and courts' fiduciary duties to those class
members," he said in the 51-page brief.  "The fact of the matter
is that the parties still unapologetically defend their right to
silently forum-shop away from a judge that would scrutinize their
settlement and safeguard absent class members' interests."


US COACHWAYS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $49.9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rattigan, Esq. -- krattigan@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that recently, an Illinois federal
judge approved a $49.9 million settlement between US Coachways, a
national charter bus and bus rental company, and a class of
plaintiffs, represented by lead plaintiff James Bull for Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations.  The class action
alleged that US Coachways sent a "staggering" amount of text
messages to 85,000 individual consumers' cell phones in violation
of the TCPA beginning back in 2011.  The class alleged that US
Coachways texted individuals who had booked trips in the past or
those who simply requested a quote from them -- over 391,459 text
messages according to the court.

Because US Coachways is unable to satisfy the $49.9 million
judgment itself, it has turned to its insurer to help pay the
cost.  US Coachways will assign its rights against its insurer and
contribute $50,000 itself.

This is another example of the importance of compliance with the
TCPA's strict requirements, and the importance of obtaining and
tracking consent before your business sends a marketing text
message using autodialing technologies.


VCA INC: Graham Appeals Order Denying Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Tony M. Graham appeals a court ruling denying motion for class
certification and granting Defendants' summary judgment motion,
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016.

"On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods and
services from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class
action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA
Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit sought to
assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other individuals who
purchased similar goods and services from our animal hospitals and
alleged, among other allegations, that we improperly charged such
individuals for 'biohazard waste management' in connection with
the services performed. The lawsuit sought compensatory and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, and other relief,
including attorneys' fees and costs. VCA successfully had the
venue transferred to the Southern District of California."

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Feb. 12,
2016. In late July 2016, VCA had filed a Summary Judgment Motion.
The Honorable Christina Snyder issued her decision on Sept. 12,
2016, denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
granting Defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff in this
action filed an appeal of this judgment in October 2016.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend this
action.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based in
Los Angeles, California.  The Company is an animal healthcare
company with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,
veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,
and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.


VCA INC: Discovery Proceeding in "Bradsbery" Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit commenced by La Kimba
Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On July 16, 2014, two additional former
veterinary assistants filed a purported class action lawsuit
against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri
Brakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et al. The lawsuit seeks to
assert claims on behalf of current and former veterinary
assistants, kennel assistants, and client service representatives
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
improperly failed to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to
reimburse for certain business-related expenses, and engaged in
unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba
Bradsbery lawsuit, which stay remains in place."

On or about August 23, 2016, the Court lifted the stay and
discovery is proceeding.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
Bradsbery action. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not
believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the
Company's results of operations or financial position taken as a
whole.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based in
Los Angeles, California.  The Company is an animal healthcare
company with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,
veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,
and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.


VCA INC: "Lopez" Suit Now Closed After Accord Went Into Effect
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Carlos Lopez is now closed after
the parties' settlement went into effect, according to VCA Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The Company said: "On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided
courier services with respect to our laboratory clients in
California filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics
Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit,
is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier
services in California. The lawsuit sought to assert claims on
behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, among
other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech
Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent
contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and
improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit
sought damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. The parties agreed to settle the
action, on a class-wide basis, for an amount not to exceed
$1,250,000. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, has agreed to pay
half of the claim. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2016, we have
accrued the remaining fifty percent. The settlement is not an
admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by any of the
defendants named in the complaint. Antech Diagnostics and
Logistics Delivery Solutions agreed to the settlement to eliminate
the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with
protracted litigation."

"The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
November 30, 2015 and issued an order granting final approval of
the settlement on March 25, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the Court
entered the Judgment approving the settlement and the judgment
went into effect on June 1, 2016. The final settlement amount was
approximately $900,000, half of which was paid by DSA pursuant to
our agreement."

Payments to class members were made in early July 2016 and this
matter is now closed.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based in
Los Angeles, California.  The Company is an animal healthcare
company with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,
veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,
and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.


VCA INC: Representative Claims Under PAGA Pursued in "Duran" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Duran is pursuing his representative claims under the
Private Attorneys General Act, according to VCA Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant at one of the
Company's animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit
against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs. VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc., et al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of current and former veterinary assistants employed by the
Company in California, and alleges, among other allegations, that
the Company improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages,
improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and
engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages,
statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs.

On May 7, 2014, the Company obtained partial summary judgment,
dismissing four of eight claims of the complaint, including the
claims for failure to pay regular and overtime wages. On Jan. 9,
2014, Plaintiff Duran moved to certify a meal period premium
class, a rest period premium class and a class under California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., On June 24,
2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff is now
pursuing his representative claims under the seventh cause of
action (Private Attorneys General Act or PAGA).

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend
against the remaining claim in this action. At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonable possible loss or
range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would
have a material effect on the Company's results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based in
Los Angeles, California.  The Company is an animal healthcare
company with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,
veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,
and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Soy-Based Insulation Wire Coating
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY FICHMANN, On Behalf of Herself And All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06736-CRB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2016),
seeks to recover money damages and legal and equitable relief on
behalf of themselves and the class members from Defendant for
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and for violations of
California consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated California owners and lessees of 2012-
2016 model year Audi vehicles (Class Vehicles).

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles are defective and
not of merchantable quality in that their electrical wiring is
coated with soy-based insulation -- a type of insulation that
Volkswagen implemented relatively recently that is purportedly
more environmentally friendly and less expensive than traditional
electrical insulation. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, and the
members of the class she seeks to represent, a real and continuous
unintended and undesired consequence of this soy-based insulation
material is that it attracts rodents and other animals that are
drawn by the soy content of the insulation. These animals,
attracted to the soy-based insulation, proceed to chew through the
insulation and electrical wires that the insulation coats. Owners
of the Class Vehicles, like Plaintiff, are then left with disabled
or otherwise improperly functioning vehicles.

Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242 5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430 3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836 6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-Mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Awaits Order on Bid to Appeal in Youngers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., awaits ruling on the Defendants'
motion to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint (Mark Youngers
v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., et al.) alleging violations
of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court") by an individual who alleges he
is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly
subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector
Funds. The complaint alleges claims against the Company, certain
of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other
parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on
behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010
and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and
concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading. On June 7, 2015, a group of three
individuals, including the original plaintiff, filed a motion to
be appointed lead plaintiff and on July 27, 2015, the District
Court appointed movants as lead plaintiff.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus
Opportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, the District Court
entered an order transferring the action to the Southern District
of New York (the "Court").

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company
and affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016. On July 1, 2016,
the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and
denying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed four
causes of action entirely and a fifth cause of action with respect
to a portion of the Class Period. The Court also dismissed all
claims against ten defendants named in the Complaint. The Court
held that the Plaintiffs may pursue certain securities claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 12
of the Securities Act of 1933. The Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016.

A Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the claim under Section 12
of the Securities Act was filed on September 15, 2016.

The defendants filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal
of the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on August 26, 2016. Oral argument on the motion was held
on October 7, 2016.

The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there
is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable
related to this claim.

Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates
in the investment management industry through its subsidiaries.
The Company provides investment management and related services to
individuals and institutions throughout the United States of
America.  The Company's retail investment management services are
provided to individuals through products consisting of open-end
mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange traded funds, variable
insurance funds, Undertaking for Collective Investment in
Transferable Securities and separately managed accounts.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities litigation entitled In re Virtus
Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation; formerly Tom
Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al., remains
pending, according to Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and
certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including
the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015,
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint,
which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015
(the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse
facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared
Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5. The
plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. A motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of the
Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing
Plaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The
remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was
filed on August 5, 2016.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a
material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to
this claim.

Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates
in the investment management industry through its subsidiaries.
The Company provides investment management and related services to
individuals and institutions throughout the United States of
America.  The Company's retail investment management services are
provided to individuals through products consisting of open-end
mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange traded funds, variable
insurance funds, Undertaking for Collective Investment in
Transferable Securities and separately managed accounts.


WACKENHUT CORP: Decertification Order in "Lubin" Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NIVIDA LUBIN et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION, Defendant and
Respondent, No. B244383 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Four reversed the trial
court's order which granted Wackenhut Corporation's motion for
decertification.

Nivida Lubin, Sylvia M. Maresca, and Kevin Denton filed an action
on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, alleging
that The Wackenhut Corporation violated California labor laws by
failing to provide employees with off-duty meal and rest breaks
and by providing inadequate wage statements.

The trial court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  However, as the case approached trial, the United
States Supreme Court reversed a grant of class certification in
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) 564 U.S. 338 (Wal-Mart).

Wal-Mart involved class certification of some 1.5 million current
and former female employees, alleging that their employer, Wal-
Mart, discriminated against them based on sex by denying them
equal pay and promotions, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title 42 United States Code
section 2000e-1 et seq.

The Supreme Court reversed class certification because the
plaintiffs did not offer significant proof that Wal-Mart operated
under a general policy of discrimination.  The Supreme Court also
disapproved of the method by which the plaintiffs planned to
establish liability and damages.  The Supreme Court found that the
method, which it termed "Trial by Formula," would prevent Wal-Mart
from litigating its statutory defenses to individual claims.

Relying on Wal-Mart, Wackenhut moved for decertification.  The
trial court granted the motion, stating two main bases for its
ruling: (1) that individualized issues predominated; and (2) that
there was no way to conduct a manageable trial of plaintiffs'
claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, contending that decertification was not
warranted by a change in circumstances or case law and that the
court used improper criteria in granting the motion for
decertification.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, found that
the trial court's reliance on Wal-Mart to support decertification
for each of the plaintiffs' claims overextended holdings in that
case.

The trial court determined that Wal-Mart disapproved of the
statistical sampling method, even though statistical sampling had
been introduced only in relation to one of the plaintiffs' three
claims, the meal period claim.

The appellate court, however, found that Wal-Mart does not
prohibit the broad use of statistical sampling in class action
lawsuits, but that the decision whether to allow statistical
evidence ultimately is within the discretion of the trial court.

The trial court also found that individualized inquiries were
necessary because, pursuant to Wal-Mart, Wackenhut was entitled to
defend by proving that, even if plaintiffs presented evidence that
it had a general policy of not providing valid meal or rest
breaks, in practice some employees were afforded an off-duty meal
or rest break.

Again, the appellate court found that this rationale misapplies
Wal-Mart.  In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs
failed to present evidence establishing the existence of a common
policy of discrimination.  In the Lubin case, when it originally
certified the class, the trial court found that plaintiffs had
presented sufficient evidence that Wackenhut had policies and
practices that violated wage and hour laws.  Because plaintiffs
met their burden of establishing a common policy, the appellate
court held that whether an individual was permitted to take a
valid meal or rest break on any given day is a question of
damages.

The appellate court also pointed out that the distinctive nature
of Title VII liability also distinguishes Wal-Mart from the facts
of the case.  The court explained that individualized inquiries
were necessary in Wal-Mart because under Title VII, once the
plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of a discriminatory
action, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the
adverse employment action was made for a nondiscriminatory
employment reason.  A defendant's right to prove that an adverse
employment action as to a specific employee was taken for a
nondiscriminatory reason, will necessarily have to be
individualized.

In contrast, the appellate court found that the wage order
governing meal and rest breaks at issue in the Lubin case does not
have the same individualized burden-shifting mechanism as Title
VII.  The court held that if the plaintiffs have made a showing
that Wackenhut had a policy or practice that violated California
wage and hour laws, any defense asserted by Wackenhut can also be
presented on a classwide basis.

The trial court's order was thus reversed, and the case was
remanded as to off-duty meal break, rest break, and wage statement
issues.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 21, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/RC3ukf from Leagle.com.

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Emily P. Rich --
erich@unioncounsel.net -- Theodore Franklin --
tfranklin@unioncounsel.net -- Manuel A. Boigues --
mboigues@unioncounsel.net -- Posner & Rosen, Howard Z. Rosen,
Jason C. Marsili, Brianna M. Primozic; James R. Hawkings, James R.
Hawkings, and Gregory E. Mauro, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Theane Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Bradley J. Hamberger, Jennifer E.
Rosenberg -- srosenberg@gibsondunn.com -- Gordon & Rees, Stephen
E. Ronk -- sronk@gordonrees.com -- Mollie Burks-Thomas --
mburks@gordonrees.com -- and Michelle L. Steinhardt --
msteinhardt@gordonrees.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, John A. Taylor, Jr. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com --
Felix Shafir -- fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- and Robert H. Wright --
rwright@horvitzlevy.com -- for Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America, National Association of Security Companies, and
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Meiners" ERISA Class Action in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------
John Meiners, on behalf of a class of all persons similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan,
the Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo & Company; Human Resources
Committee of the Wells Fargo Board of Directors; Wells Fargo
Employee Benefits Review Committee; Hope Hardison; Justin
Thornton; Howard Atkins; Patricia Callahan; Michael Heid; Timothy
Sloan; John Stumpf; Lloyd Dean; John Chen; Susan Engel; Donald
James; and Stephen Sanger, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-03981
(D. Minn., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks to recover damages, equitable
relief, and all other remedies available under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) from the Defendants
for violating their duties of loyalty and prudence in investing
Plan assets.

According to the complaint, specifically, since at least 2010, the
Defendants have engaged in a practice of self-dealing and
imprudent investing of Plan assets by funneling billions of
dollars of those assets into Wells Fargo's own proprietary funds.
Specifically, the Benefit Committee, with the knowledge and
participation of Wells Fargo, the HR Committee, and the other
fiduciary Defendants, selected as investments a class of mutual
funds -- known as target date funds -- and designed and maintained
a system to maximize the amount of Plan assets invested into those
funds. Defendants did so by, among other things, (1) defaulting
certain participant contributions into the Wells Fargo target date
funds, and (2) encouraging participants to purchase the funds
through an "easy" and "quick" enrollment feature, where
participants would, with a check of a box, dedicate all their
future contributions into the Wells Fargo target date funds. The
Wells Fargo target date funds cost on average over 2.5 times more
than comparable target date funds while, at the same time,
substantially and consistently underperforming those comparable
funds. The substantial cost inflation was due, in part, to the
fact that, unlike the comparable funds, Wells Fargo double charged
for its target date funds -- charging fees for both (1) managing
the target date funds themselves, and (2) managing the index funds
underlying the target date funds. The intentional funneling of
participants into the target date funds not only generated
substantial revenues for Wells Fargo, but, with Plan assets
constituting more than one quarter of total assets in the funds,
it provided critical seed money that kept the funds afloat by
boosting market share. Thus, Defendants have, among other things,
violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and/or
knowingly participated in such breaches to the detriment of the
Plan.

The 401(k) plan is a type of employee retirement plan in which
employees invest a percentage of their earnings on a pre-tax
basis.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 South Washington Avenue, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Elias, Esq.
          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          Tamara M. Spicer, Esq.
          ELIAS GUTZLER SPICER LLC
          130 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 302
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 833 6645
          Facsimile: (314) 621 7607
          E-mail: relias@egslitigation.com
                  ggutzler@egslitigation.com
                  tspicer@egslitigation.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN
          1100 New York Ave. NW, No. 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  ggraber@cohenmilstein.com


WELLS FARGO: "Lieber" Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rachel Lieber, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. CV 16 871894, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02868 to the
proceeding.

Wells Fargo provides personal, small business, and commercial
banking services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott A. King, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE - CLEVELAND
          3900 Key Tower
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 566 5500
          Facsimile: (215) 566 5800
          E-mail: Scott.King@thompsonhine.com


WILLIE'S CHICKEN: Sauls Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY SAULS and HEATHER ARNOULT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WILLIE'S CHICKEN
SHACK, LLC, DIAMOND BOURBON, INC., GOLDEN BOURBON, INC., WILLIES'
CANAL, LLC, WILLIE'S DECATUR, LLC, WILLIE'S 630
BOURBON, LLC, WILLIE'S 409 BOURBON, LLC, WILLIE'S 707 CANAL, LLC
AND AARON MOTWANI, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-16596 (E.D.
La., Nov. 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendants engaged in a pattern
or practice of unlawful conduct which resulted in the violation of
their rights under the FLSA. The Defendants allegedly violated the
FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs the legally mandated hourly overtime premium for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek when Plaintiffs often worked many
hours in excess of 40 hours.

The Defendants own and operate a network of fried chicken and
daiquiri shops throughout New Orleans under the trade name
Willie's Chicken Shack.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher L. Williams
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 308 1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308 1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

               - and -

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON + JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


WINDSTREAM SERVICES: "Doppelt" Suit Remains Pending in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder lawsuit filed in Delaware against Windstream
Services LLC and others remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of
Directors.  This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,
ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 -- the day before a
special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse
stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") --
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning
that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been
disclosed in public filings available on the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream
Holdings' board of directors was in no way conflicted, and while
approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval
was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court
dismissed Windstream, and plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin-
off, but otherwise denied the motion.

Windstream Services, LLC, is a subsidiary of Windstream Holdings,
Inc., a publicly traded holding company.  Windstream Services
provides advanced network communications and technology solutions
for consumers, businesses, enterprise organizations and wholesale
customers across the United States.  The Company offers bundled
services, including broadband, security solutions, voice and
digital television to consumers.


YAHOO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Personal Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Tina Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Yahoo Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-
06733 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks an order requiring Yahoo
to remedy the harm caused by its misconduct, including
compensation to Plaintiff and Class members for resulting account
fraud and for all reasonably necessary measures Plaintiff and
Class members have had to take in order to identify and safeguard
the accounts put at risk by Yahoo's grossly negligent security.

On September 22, 2016, Yahoo announced that a "recent
investigation" showed that "state-sponsored" hackers accessed its
network in late 2014 and stole the personal data on over 500
million users. The stolen information includes users' names, email
addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, scrambled passwords,
and in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security questions and
answers used to verify an accountholder's identity (Personal
Information). While Yahoo says the stolen passwords were
encrypted, computer-security experts have opined that a hacker
could unscramble the passwords using commonly available "cracking"
software. Moreover, once a password is "cracked", hackers can
break into Yahoo Mail accounts and if the password happened to be
the same on other banking, retail or financial website accounts,
hackers could gain access to those accounts as well.

Due to Defendant's failure to implement and maintain basic data
security protocols in accordance with industry standards, and
contrary to Yahoo's representations, its users' Personal
Information is now in the hands of criminals and/or enemies of the
Unites States, subjecting Plaintiff and the Class to the serious
risk of identity theft in a wide variety of forms.

Yahoo was so grossly negligent in securing its users' Personal
Information. Initially, Yahoo claimed that it did not even
discover the incident until the summer of 2016. However, in a
recent filing with the Security Exchange Commission, Yahoo
revealed that it knew in 2014 that it had been hacked.

Yahoo offers online services to millions people worldwide,
including Yahoo! Mail, a free email service (with premium
options). Yahoo! Mail was launched in 1997, and is one of the
oldest and largest web-based email services available. Among other
things, Yahoo! Mail includes email, calendar, contacts, note
taking, and Yahoo Messenger integration. Yahoo reportedly has over
500 million Yahoo Mail users, including 81 million in the United
States alone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Quentin A. Roberts
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1 California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398 8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  qroberts@finkelsteinthompson.com


* CFPB Launches Inquiry Into Consumer Financial Data Access
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonnelle Marte, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
government's consumer watchdog wants to know if you're having a
hard time accessing your financial data.

At a field hearing in Salt Lake City, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau launched an inquiry into the challenges
consumers might face when using websites such as Mint.com, which
aggregate details about consumers' finances.  The agency said it
wants to know what consumers are told about how their data is
shared and stored.  Officials also want to know if consumers have
had issues with their banks slowing down or blocking access to
their data.

"We are concerned that some financial institutions have threatened
to cut off the flow of information to some websites and mobile
applications," CFPB director Richard Cordray said in prepared
remarks.  "We also hear of financial institutions that make
consumers jump through so many hoops to access or authorize access
to their own financial records that they are discouraged from even
trying."

The call for more information is a sign the agency is moving ahead
with potential rules regulating how banks must store, protect and
share consumers' financial data, despite the major questions that
have been raised about its future since the election.  With Mr.
Cordray's term not up until 2018, the agency is continuing to
tackle the items on its regulatory agenda -- even though it's not
clear how those efforts may fare under the new presidential
administration.

The CFPB and the Dodd-Frank legislation that created the agency
have been marked as a target by President-elect Donald Trump.
Trump has not said specifically what changes he would like to make
to the consumer protection agency, but a website from his
transition team says he wants to "dismantle" the Dodd-Frank Act.
In the past several months, Republicans have proposed making
significant changes to the way the independent agency is run or
funded, including a proposal to replace the director's slot with a
five-member bipartisan commission.

Since Election Day, many government agencies have accelerated
their timelines for regulations out of concern over how their
offices might fare under the new administration.  For instance,
the Interior Department finalized a rule on Nov. 15 that affects
the oil and gas industry.

But other groups are slowing down their agendas.  The head of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Mary Jo White, announced that
she is stepping down two years before the end of her term.  And
the Federal Communications Commission has signaled that it would
not be rolling out more major regulations this year.

Research is typically the first step in the CFPB's rule-making
process, which also usually involves releasing an outline of what
those potential rules might look like, before regulation is
officially proposed.

The agency has been busy this year, proposing rules for payday
lenders and regulations that would ban financial companies from
using arbitration clauses to keep customers out of class-action
lawsuits.  It's unclear how these proposed rules, which would
probably not be finalized until next year, will fare with a
Republican in the White House and under a Republican-controlled
Congress.

With its latest inquiry, the CFPB is moving to ensure that
consumers can access details about their recent purchases,
deposits and account balances when using third-party apps or
websites that can help them budget or set other financial goals.
Over the past several years, new Fintech start-ups have popped up
to help consumers keep track of their bills, track spending
patterns and meet other financial goals.  At the field hearing,
which was announced before the election, Mr. Cordray said the
agency also wants to make sure the companies are storing
information securely.


* Circuit Split Over Arbitration Class Action Waiver Widens
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Arnold, Esq. -- MArnold@mintz.com -- and Brie
Kluytenaar, Esq. -- BKluytenaar@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, report that with the 9th Circuit's late
summer anti-class action waiver decision, the circuit split
widened over the issue of whether employers can require employees,
through an arbitration agreement, to waive their rights to bring
class or collective actions against their employer.  This issue
will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court given the deepening
divide and the Court's previous apparent interest in addressing
issues surrounding class action waivers and arbitration
agreements.

The Issue
There are two conflicting statutes in play here: The Federal
Arbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

The FAA promotes and protects the enforceability of arbitration
agreements, and generally, it requires courts to enforce
arbitration agreements unless another federal statute specifically
overrides it or enforcement would impinge upon a "substantive
right" afforded to an individual under that statute.

The NLRA provides employees with a substantive right to engage in
concerted activity, i.e. to act collectively with respect to their
wages and other terms and conditions of their employment.

The question many of the Circuit Courts of Appeals have
confronted, and the Supreme Court will hopefully soon confront, is
whether the right to pursue relief in court collectively is the
equivalent of engaging in protected "concerted activity" -- a
substantive and therefore non-waivable right.

Conflicting Circuit Court Holdings
In August 2016, the 9th Circuit in Morris v. Ernst & Young became
the second circuit to answer that question in the affirmative.
That decision mostly mirrored the 7th Circuit's May 2016 decision
in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, concluding that class action
waivers in employer-imposed arbitration agreements violate the
NLRA.  There, the 7th Circuit found that there is nothing quite so
"concerted" as a class action litigation, where employees band
together to collectively assert a legal challenge to a workplace
practice.  The 9th Circuit found the same, stating: "this
restriction is the 'very antithesis' of [the NLRA's] substantive
right to pursue concerted work-related legal claims."

In contrast to the positions taken by the 7th and 9th Circuits,
the 2nd, 5th and 8th Circuits have all previously concluded that
such waivers do not violate the NLRA.

Litigants in many of these cases have asked the Supreme Court to
resolve the issue and updates will be forthcoming as new
developments emerge on that front.

In the meantime, in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling, the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) adheres to a policy of
"nonacquiescence," meaning it will continue to decide cases based
on its analysis and interpretation of the law notwithstanding the
rejection of its position by certain of the circuit courts of
appeals.

As a result, dozens of cases involving this issue are pending in
the federal appellate courts on appeal from rulings of the NLRB
and employers have been left scrambling to determine whether to
utilize these agreements in certain parts of the country.

Takeaways
All employers should pay close attention to this issue as it
doesn't merely impact unionized workforces.  In Morris, employees
had attempted to bring a collective/class action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and California labor laws claiming unpaid
overtime.  They argued that they shouldn't be forced to arbitrate
their claims individually because, in part, their arbitration
agreements separately violated the NLRA -- a violation that had
nothing to do with their claims for unpaid wages.

At the same time, employers should realize the limits of these
decisions.  First, the NLRA does not cover all employees.
Managers and supervisors cannot seek its protections (in most
cases), and therefore, cannot use it to invalidate their class
action waivers (although query whether that remains the case when
the employee is challenging his or her status as an exempt
manager/supervisor).  Second, if the arbitration provision
provides the employee with the ability to opt-out or it permits
them to pursue collective/class arbitration (in lieu of
litigation), they will likely be unable to successively challenge
it.

The law on this question is currently in flux, but the Supreme
Court has repeatedly held that arbitration is a matter of contract
and that the terms of arbitration agreements will be strictly
enforced.  In light of this and the fact that we should assume a
conservative-leaning judge will fill the current vacancy on the
Supreme Court, it is not unreasonable to conclude that another
FAA-favorable decision will be headed our way.  Regardless of the
outcome, we hope to have a decision soon so that the parties to
these agreements can act with greater certainty.  In the meantime,
employers operating in the 7th and 9th circuits should consider
whether and how they want to revise their arbitration agreements
while this issue remains outstanding.


* Obama Admin. Seeks to Curb Insurance Mandatory Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Lambert, writing for Reuters, reports that the Obama
administration is pressing U.S. states to curb insurers' use of
fine print in contracts that bars unsatisfied customers from
suing, taking the latest step against "mandatory arbitration
clauses" in an insurance report released by the Treasury
Department on Nov. 21.

The federal government does not regulate insurance companies or
products. Each state has its own oversight process. But in recent
years, the U.S. government has dipped its toe into regulating the
industry, most notably by identifying some insurers as "too big to
fail," a label triggering additional capital requirements.

In its report, the Treasury Department says states should
"consider developing appropriate constraints on mandatory
arbitration clauses in insurance contracts."

"State policymakers and insurance regulators should assess whether
the current lack of uniformity in state laws and regulations
raises questions about whether state consumer protections for
insurance consumers should better align with those afforded to the
consumers of other financial products and services," it also said.

The clauses are recent additions to many contracts, including
those for cellphones and nursing homes. In order to open accounts,
customers must agree that they will take any future dispute to an
independent arbitrator, often selected by the company, instead of
joining a class-action lawsuit.

Critics of arbitration say that it is often conducted in secret,
denying customers due process or a legal precedent, and that
arbitrators have cause to rule in the company's favor. Supporters
say it is quicker than lawsuits and more of the money in a
settlement goes directly to a customer than in class-action
lawsuits, where people band together to sue.

In May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created in 2010,
proposed a rule that would only allow optional arbitration clauses
in contracts in sectors the agency oversees. More recently, the
U.S. Department of Education finalized rules barring the clauses
in contracts for for-profit colleges.

Meanwhile, customers hoping to sue Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) over
the opening of bogus accounts in their names have found that the
fine print meant they agreed to take claims to an arbitrator
instead of a courtroom.


* Netherlands to Introduce Monetary Damages Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chr. Frank (Frank) Kroes, Esq. -- FRANK.KROES@BAKERMCKENZIE.COM  -
- of Baker & McKenzie, in an article for Lexology, reports that
The Netherlands will get a collective action for monetary damages,
not dissimilar to a US-style class action.  The government placed
a bill to that effect before Parliament on November 15, 2016.
However, the Netherlands are keen to avoid what is widely seen, at
least in this country, as the downside of class action litigation:
blackmail settlements, because of the reputational risk and
prohibitive cost of defense that a class action involves, and
plaintiff's lawyers receiving the bulk of the proceeds, whereas
little money goes to the aggrieved parties.

Therefore, the collective action may only be brought by a claim
foundation (or association) that complies with stringent criteria.
The claim foundation must be sufficiently representative, taking
into account the support it has from aggrieved parties and the
amount of claims that it represents. In addition, it must have a
supervisory body, a mechanism to insure the involvement of the
aggrieved parties that it represents, sufficient means to bear the
cost of litigation, a website, open for inspection by the public,
that provides relevant information and sufficient experience and
expertise in relation to the claims that it brings.

In addition, the directors that were involved in the incorporation
of the claim foundation and their successors may not pursue a
profit through the claim foundation.

The jurisdiction of the Dutch courts in collective actions is no
different from their jurisdiction in other cases.  However, the
government wants to prevent an indue influx of cases in collective
actions that have insufficient nexus with the Netherlands.  For
that reason, there will be a 'scope rule' in addition to the rules
on jurisdiction. The scope rule provides that a class action is
inadmissible if the claims have insufficient nexus with the
Netherlands.

Sufficient nexus with the Netherlands exists if the majority of
the aggrieved parties to whose protection the claims are brought
have their residence in the Netherlands, the defendant has its
domicile in the Netherlands or the event or events that gave rise
to the claims occurred in the Netherlands.

The courts in Amsterdam will have exclusive jurisdiction (in
international cases, provided that the Dutch courts have
international jurisdiction).  However, they may refer the case to
another court if there is a strong connection with the region of
that court.  An example of such a strong connection are damages
caused by earthquakes as a result of the extraction of natural gas
in Groningen, a province in the north of the Netherlands.

Within two days of filing a collective action, the claim
foundation must register the collective action with a public
register.  This will enable other claim foundations to file a
collective action as well.  To that end, there will be a
suspension of three to six months after the filing of the first
collective action.  If more than one collective action is filed in
relation to the same event or events, the court will elect a lead
plaintiff from the claim foundations that made a filing. This
system should prevent a race to the court house.  The court should
elect the most suitable claim foundation, taking into account the
number of aggrieved parties that it represents, their financial
interests and the efforts that the claim foundation made in
relation to the claim and its previous experience.  The lead
plaintiff will represent all aggrieved parties within the class,
but the other claim foundations remain parties to proceedings as
well.  They may, however, only make filings to the extent that the
court allows it.

Within a period set by the court, aggrieved parties have the
opportunity to opt out.  This period must be at least one month
after appointment of the lead plaintiff.  Aggrieved parties that
fail to opt out will be bound by the judgment in the collective
action.

After appointment of the lead plaintiff, the court will set a term
in which the parties may attempt to reach a settlement.  If a
settlement is reached, it must be submitted to the court for
approval.  If the court approved the settlement, it binds all the
aggrieved parties in the class that did not opt-out.  There will
be no second opportunity for an opt-out at this stage.

If no settlement is reached, the collective action will proceed.
The court may order the parties to submit a proposal for claims
settlement.  The court may use these proposals to settle the
claims, but it is not bound by the proposals.  The court should
fix the damages in the most appropriate fashion.  This may include
damage scheduling, that is: defining categories of aggrieved
parties and the damages that the members of each category will
receive.  Subsequently, the class must be notified of the court's
judgment in the most appropriate fashion.  This notice should make
clear how aggrieved parties may get payment of the compensation to
which they are entitled pursuant to the judgment.

Parliament will read the bill within the next months.  Whether the
Second Chamber of Parliament will be able to complete its reading
before the elections in March 2017 remains to be seen.  If the
bill becomes law, the collective action for monetary damages is
likely to become a potent instrument for the settlement of mass
claims.  It will co-exist with the collective settlement procedure
pursuant to the Act on the collective settlement of mass claims
(Wcam).  The latter procedure applies to settlements that have
been made voluntarily before the procedure starts.


* Social Networks May Impact Class Action Notice Methods
--------------------------------------------------------
James Sherer, Esq. -- jsherer@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler,
in an article for Lexology, reports that the resources from which
people obtain, and choose to obtain, information have changed
dramatically. A recent and highly publicized discussion of how
information is exchanged might be the so-called filter bubble that
many social media users experience.  This bubble has reportedly
caused "autonomous decision-making," which hypothesizes that
people pay attention to only those sources of information with
which they agree and that reinforce their beliefs.  These theories
are seemingly supported by data regarding how U.S. adults utilize
services like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Reddit, and how
these and other social media sites are now among the primary
sources of news and other information for U.S. adults.

The way people receive and believe information matters in the
class action context.  Judges are instructed that notices must
effectively reach and come to the attention of the class -- that
is, command the attention of the intended recipients.  The ways in
which notice may be given are codified in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), which provides that "[f]or any class
certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class
members the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can
be identified through reasonable effort."

The "best" notice traditionally is first-class mail. Eisen v.
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). Since Eisen, however,
lower courts were still free to examine other methods for notice.
One court found that notice under Rule 23 was sufficient when one
of the methods of sharing information was a display on a "Facebook
page, which delivered individual e-mail notifications" to Facebook
"fans" of its posts. Kelly v. Phiten USA, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 564,
569 (S.D. Iowa 2011).  Another deemed a targeted Facebook
publication that "linked to the settlement website" sufficient
notice. Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., 2013 WL 5781284, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013).  Courts have found Facebook to be a
"generally acceptable" means of notice when included among a set
of "myriad methods for providing notice, such as notice by U.S.
mail, setting up a toll-free interactive voice response telephone
number, and establishing a dedicated website." Baez v. LTD
Financial Services, L.P., 2016 WL 3189133 (M.D. Fla. June 8,
2016).

But while these new methods of notice were being suggested and
sometimes approved, other courts were careful not to mandate the
use of the internet and social media sites.  One noted, for
example, that there "is no requirement under due process or the
federal rules requiring dissemination of [court pleadings, related
records, or other] information over the Internet or the telephone.
Rather, all that is required by F.R.C.P. 23 is that Notice be
provided to the class by the most practicable means available. .
." Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222, 233 (S.D. Ill.
2001).  And others shied away from even allowing certain social
media postings due to concerns of prejudice and overreach by
plaintiffs, as in Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, 2015 WL 2330079
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2015).

As courts grapple with the best way to approach new forms of media
in the context of the notice requirements, the Eisen first-class
mail standard continues to loom over most proceedings. Recognizing
this, the Rule 23 Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil
Rules recently suggested adding the following modification:
"individual notice by the most appropriate means, including first
class mail, electronic, or other means to all members."
Commentators noted that this represents a powerful change that
"enshrines both 'electronic' and 'other' means as acceptable
methods of certification notice within the language of Rule 23 --
on equal footing with 'first class mail'" and the Eisen case law.

Research indicates that the majority (62 percent) of U.S. adults
get news on social media, and "[t]wo-thirds of Facebook users (66
percent) get their news on the site -- a figure that amounts to 44
percent of the general population."  But practitioners express
concern that electronic mail may deprive lower-income individuals
of adequate notice in certain cases.  Another consideration is
whether the wording that the subcommittee proposed could be read
to prioritize electronic notice over more traditional forms of
notice.  Moreover, electronic notice may be ineffective due to the
"filter bubble" discussed above.

Some commentators have noted just that, opining that a
determination of which "method of notice to use under the proposed
amended rule will be a fact-specific inquiry for courts to answer
while balancing considerations such as potential costs of notice,
access of class members to various technologies and forms of
communications, and the level of attention class members are
likely [to] pay to the notice in any given form of transmittal."
With that in mind, and knowledge of how these tools operate,
courts and practitioners may, therefore, require a better
understanding of how people interact with social media to ensure
that the purpose of the notice -- rather than just the form -- is
served.


* Tobacco Settlement Fees Spread to Former Chicago Alderman
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reports that a recently
unsealed indictment in Chicago shows just how far legal fees from
the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998 spread.  Federal
authorities have charged former Chicago alderman Edward "Fast
Eddie" Vdolyak with trying to help another lawyer evade taxes on
potentially $65 million in fees the pair were promised despite
having done no legal work on the deal.

The indictment against Mr. Vdolyak was unveiled as an addition to
the pending criminal case against Daniel P. Soso, a former
policeman and lawyer the feds charged with tax evasion last year.
The government accuses Mr. Vdolyak of using relatives and other
intermediaries to hide his payments to Mr. Soso under a fee-
splitting agreement with an unnamed Seattle attorney who was
identified in earlier court proceedings as class-action lawyer
Steven Berman.

Mr. Vdolyak's lawyer Michael Monico with Monico & Spevack said his
client would plead not guilty at his arraignment tomorrow. The
government failed to send notice to the proper entity for the back
taxes, Mr. Monico said, although Mr. Vdolyak nevertheless placed
$300,000 in escrow against the IRS claim.

Regardless of how Mr. Vdolyak fares in court, the indictment
further taints a massive multistate agreement that rewarded the
political friends of the attorneys general who helped negotiate
it.  Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales went to jail in
2003 for trying to steer some $400 million in fees to one of his
friends, and state AGs elsewhere hired private law firms, many of
them with strong ties to the Democratic Party, to pursue the cases
seeking repayment of Medicare and Medicaid expenses for smoking-
related diseases.

The resulting settlement was a financial win for Philip Morris,
which got a price-sustaining cartel out of the deal under state
agreements to restrict new entrants from the cigarette industry.

It was also a bonanza for the private lawyers, who reaped more
than $1 billion in fees paid out over the next 25 years.
Recipients included Berman's firm Hagens Berman, Motley Rice,
Milberg Weiss (one of whose name partners later went to jail on
unrelated securities charges), and Baltimore Orioles owner Peter
Angelos.  Here in my home state of Connecticut, then-AG, now-Sen.
Richard Blumenthal authorized lucrative fee contracts with his
former law firm Silver, Golub & Teitel as well as another firm
with ties to then-Gov. (and since jailed) John Rowland.

At least those law firms ostensibly performed legal work for the
state.  In the Chicago indictment, the government says Mr. Berman,
identified as "Individual B," secretly sent checks to lawyers who
did no such work. Berman didn't immediately return a request for
comment, but the Chicago Tribune reports the firm sent an e-mailed
statement saying Hagens Berman disclosed all fees with the state.

The Seattle firm was among the national counsel who signed a
contract with Illinois in 1996 to act as "Special Assistant
Attorneys General" to pursue the tobacco litigation for a 10% fee.
Under that agreement 30% of the legal work was to go to local
counsel, but neither Mr. Vrdrolyak nor Mr. Soso were ever
identified as such.  They weren't authorized to perform legal work
for the state, the government says, "and did not perform any work"
for Illinois on the tobacco case.

Despite this, "Individual B" sent a letter promising Messrs. Soso
and Vrdolyak 2.5% of any contingent fee his firm won.  Messrs.
Soso and Vrdolyak reached their own agreement in 1999 to split any
fees they received and also that year "Individual B" sent another
letter promising them 10% of the national counsel's fees, or
roughly $65 million if they got everything they were seeking. As
it turns out, the outside lawyers settled with the state in 2003
for an additional $67.5 million in fees, and from 2000 to "at
least in or around August 2005," Mr. Vrdolyak paid his share of
the fees to Mr. Soso.

The indictment doesn't say how much Mr. Vrdolyak ultimately got
from the settlement, or if he's still pulling cash from the
agreement.  But Mr. Soso was indicted last year for evading
$800,000 in taxes -- indicating some $2 million in income at a 39%
marginal tax rate -- and the Chicago Sun-Times reports that Mr.
Vrdolyak's lawyer told a federal judge at a 2009 hearing that his
client's fees were then running $30,000 a month.

Even if Hagens Berman is right about disclosing what it paid
Messrs. Vrdolyak and Soso to the state, that information never
leaked out the public at large.  This indictment shows how
important it is that lawyers disclose every recipient of fees in
big class-action lawsuits and cases involving state and local
government.  Securities class actions frequently feature state,
union and municipal pension funds as lead plaintiffs and private
attorneys have a habit of spreading their fees to unusual
recipients including labor lawyers with no apparent securities-law
experience and attorneys with connections to state government.
Earlier this year an appeals court unsealed a lawsuit by a former
Bernstein Litowitz attorney accusing his firm of funneling cash to
a lawyer whose husband was on the staff of the Mississippi
attorney general. (Bernstein Litowitz denied wrongroing and
settled with the lawyer.) Back in 2013, the same firm was accused
of sending $30,000 to a slush fund controlled by former Detroit
Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who was later convicted of shaking down
city contractors for bribes.

The tobacco settlement was the biggest payday of all for these
lawyers who tend to write large campaign contribution checks to
the Democratic officials who hire them as outside counsel.  While
many lawyers sold the stream of future fee income for an immediate
payment, others are probably putting their kids and grandchildren
through college on what is effectively a tax on smokers.  If the
claims in this indictment is true, more than one politician got in
on the action for reasons still unclear.



                            *********

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  * * *