CAR_Public/161212.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 247




                            Headlines

30 OPERATING: "Atakhanov" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: JUXTAPID Case Parties in Mediation
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Steinberg Claims Without Merit
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: "Flanigon" Class Action Dismissed
AIU ONLINE: Bid to Certify Class in "Hodge" Suit Due on May 12

AKORN INC: UFCW Local Files Suit Over Clobetasol Price-Fixing
AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: "Davis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ALLERGAN PLC: Indirect Buyers' Suit over Asacol(R) Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Seeks to Dismissal Direct Buyers' Suit Over Asacol
ALLERGAN PLC: Opposed Class Certification Bid in Botox(R) Action

ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan Asks Third Circuit for Rehearing En Banc
ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Omnibus Bids to Dismiss Loestrin(R) 24 Claims
ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs' Answer to Amended Namenda Suit Filed
ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Vacated Dismissal of Zymar Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: District Court Stays Discovery in Celexa Action

AMERICAN BREAD: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
AMPARTS SOURCING: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
ANDERSON PERFORATING: Phillips et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
APOLLO GLOBAL: Trilogy and Danner Actions Stayed
APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Underway

APOLLO GLOBAL: No Argument Date Yet on Bid to Dismiss Silva Case
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Arrow Merger Underway
APOLLO GLOBAL: Nov. 2017 Merits Trial Set in Hudson Bay Action
APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages
APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Threatened to Dismiss Shareholder Suit

APOLLO GLOBAL: Defendant in Rackspace Shareholder Action
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Siegel" Suit Securities Suit
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal of Dismissal Order Pending
BCB BANCORP: Plaintiff's Bid for $1-Mil. in Fees Remains Pending
BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Faces "West" Suit in S.D. of New York

BLU PRODUCTS: Phones Contain Spyware, Class Suit Claims
BOTANAS II LLC: "Diaz-Ortiz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BRAND PLUMBING: McFeeters Seeks to Certify Class of Plumbers
BULLDOG OILFIELD: Faces "Yorba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CANDELA CORP: Body-Shaping System Doesn't Work, Suit Says

CARBYLAN THERAPEUTICS: Voluntary Class Action Dismissal Approved
CARDINAL INNOVATIONS: Kirkpatrick Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CARTER'S RETAIL: Wins Final Nod of $472,500 Deal in "Dudum" Suit
CHANG LUNG: Faces "Jian" Suit in Eastern District of New York
CIM GROUP: Faces "Savickaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Pension Fund's Suit Stayed
CUBESMART: Faces "Coleman" Class Suit in South. District Florida
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces "Wells" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pa.
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Wins Prelim. OK of "Palmer" Class Settlement

EBS SECURITY: "Lockley" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Suit Over Constact Contact Deal Underway
EPIC SYSTEMS: "Schultz" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
ESA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Delaughter" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
FCA US LLC: Automotive Diesel Emissions Hit in "Chavez" Suit

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Babcock" Sues Over Share Price Drop
FIREEYE INC: Defending Against Stockholder Suit California Court
FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Action Still Pending
FITBIT INC: Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit Set for May 2017

FITBIT INC: Hearing Held on Issue of Arbitrability
FITBIT INC: San Mateo Action Transferred to San Francisco
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Overstates CnF Value, FourWorld Report Says
FOREVER 21: Faces "Huang" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of TCPA
GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Merger Suit Under Appeal

GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Wagner" Suit Over Product Misbranding
GEO CORRECTIONS: Faces "Weldon" Suit in California Super. Ct.
GOPRO INC: Jan. 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Camia Suit
GOPRO INC: Bid to Dismiss San Mateo Court Suit Underway
GRUMA CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims

GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Bid for Class Certification Due on March 3
GULF COAST: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fulgencio" Suit Claims
HOUSTON, TX: Cops Illegally Detain Arrestees, Class Suit Says
IMPERVA INC: Defendants' Operative Answer to Amended Suit Filed
INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Plaintiff Drops Merger Class Action

INVENSENSE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Appeals Court Decision Pending
ITC HOLDINGS: Class Suits Over Fortis Merger Pending
JANI-KING INT'L: Faces "Mujo" Suit Under Conn. Minimum Wage Act
JO-ANN STORES: Faces "West" Suit in New York for Discrimination

JONES WOLF: Faces "Winters" Suit in District of New Jersey
LODGEWORKS PARTNERS: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D of New York
KELLOGG COMPANY: "George" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment Motion in "Fosbre" Pending
LEE COUNTY, AL: Sheriff's Office Sued Over FLSA Violation

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: "Fernandez" Class Action Appeal Underway
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Action Remanded to District Court
MARKET STREET: Faces "Gregori" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MARS PETCARE: Sued Over Price-Fixing of Prescription Pet Food
MAXIMUS INC: Norton Seeks Certification of Supervisors Class

MDL 1869: Class Cert. Ruling in Fuel Surcharge Suit Pending
MISSISSIPPI LIMESTONE: Miss. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Transfer of Case to D. Mass. Recommended
NEW RELEASE: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
OCEAN SHORE: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Suit

OHIO: Palladeno Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
PALM RESTAURANT: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. of New York
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Hunt et al. Allege Racial Discrimination
PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Rikos" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to S.D. Ohio
QS SAN LUIS: Final OK of Accord in "Orduna" Suit Under Submission

RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Wells" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
RCH LAWN: Vail Lux, et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
REALOGY GROUP: Paries in "Strader" Suit in Discovery
RENT RECOVER: Certification of Class Sought in "Anderson" Suit
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: To Settle Class Suit for $6.4 Million

ROTOBRUSH INT'L: Transferred "Seramur" Class Suit to N.D. Indiana
SHIPSTON ALUMINUM: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Zellars" Suit Says
SKYE WIRELESS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
SOS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gutierrez-Bejar" Lawsuit Under FLSA
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Pension Trust's Suit Removed to S.D. Tex.

STEALTH SECURITY: Class Certification Sought in G.M. Sign Suit
STONEMOR PARTNERS: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
SUNCOAST CREDIT: Kruzell Moves to Certify Bankruptcy Filers Class
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Norfolk Suit Underway
TUBEMOGUL INC: Shareholders Challenge Adobe Systems Merger

TYSON FOODS: "Lalondb" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
UNITED STATES: "Malik" Sues Homeland Security Dept. in Ariz. Ct.
UNIVERSAL CITY: "Fierro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Chaves Moves to Certify Class of Managers
ZIMMER BIOMET: "Shah" Suit Alleges Violations of Securities Act

ZYNGA INC: "Lee" Case Settlement Subject to Final Documentation

* Edelson PC Files Suit Against Class Action Objector Law Firms


                            *********


30 OPERATING: "Atakhanov" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Ergash Atakhanov and Gayrat Unusov, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 30 Operating, LLC,
Henry Operating Corp., 33 St Operating LLC, 24 St Operating Lic
LLC, Dan 57TH ST., LLC, Lic. Lot, LLC, 54 Operating LLC, MTP 59 St
LLC, Lic. Operating 49 LLC, Lic. Operating LLC, 73 Operating LLC,
MTP 57, LLC, MTP 3300 Broadway Corp, MTP Operating Corp., 59TH
Street Parking Associates LLC, Madison Street Operating Corp. and
ABC Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09305, (S.D. N.Y.,
December 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate parking lots in New York City where Plaintiffs
worked as parking lot attendants. They claim to have been denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Tel: (718) 808-2224
      Email: naydenskiylaw@gmai1.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: JUXTAPID Case Parties in Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties in the class action lawsuit related to the marketing of
JUXTAPID have pursued mediation.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging certain
misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID
and the Company's financial performance in violation of the
federal securities laws.

On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order permitting
and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file responsive
pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and
defendants to file reply briefs.

Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June
1, 2015. The amended complaint filed against the Company and
certain of its former executive officers alleges that defendants
made certain misstatements and omissions during the first three
quarters of 2014 related to the Company's revenue projections for
JUXTAPID for 2014, as well as data underlying those projections,
in violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second
amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants made certain
misstatements and omissions from April 2013 through October 2014
related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial
projections, as well as data underlying those projections.

On September 4, 2015, the Company moved to strike the second
amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek
leave of court to file a second amended pleading, and briefing is
complete with respect to the motion to strike.

Oral argument on the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016.
On March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend.
The Company opposed this motion to amend, and following a hearing
on April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to strike and
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement.

On May 13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint
motion wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs
could file a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion,
which the Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting
defendants' pending motion to strike the second amended pleading
and co-lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
pleading.  The Court also entered a briefing schedule for
defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to
file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs.

A third amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2016. On July 22,
2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to
stay the briefing schedule while they pursued mediation, which the
Court granted on August 10, 2016.

Aegerion said, "As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the
Company cannot determine if a loss is probable as a result of the
class action lawsuit and whether the outcome will have a material
adverse effect on its business and, as a result, the Company has
not recorded any amounts for a loss contingency."

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for patients with debilitating rare diseases.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Steinberg Claims Without Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the claims
in the case, Steinberg v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are
without merit.

On August 16, 2016, a complaint captioned Steinberg v. Aegerion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11668, was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the Company, QLT, MergerCo and each member of the
Company's board of directors (the "Federal Merger Action"). The
Federal Merger Action was brought by Chaile Steinberg, who
purports to be a stockholder of the Company, on her own behalf,
and seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all
Company's stockholders.

The Steinberg complaint alleges, among other things, that the
August 8, 2016 Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection
with the proposed transaction with QLT is materially misleading.
The Steinberg complaint asserts claims arising under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks, among other things,
to enjoin the proposed transaction, to rescind it or to award
rescissory damages should it be consummated and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Federal
Merger Action are without merit and the Company has not recorded
any amount for a loss contingency in respect of such matter.

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for patients with debilitating rare diseases.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: "Flanigon" Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case,
Flanigon v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been
dismissed.

On October 3, 2016, a complaint captioned Flanigon v. Aegerion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. 12794, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Merger Action"). The
Delaware Merger Action was brought by Timothy Flanigon, who
purports to be a stockholder of the Company, on his own behalf,
and also sought certification as a class action on behalf of all
Company stockholders.

The Delaware Merger Action alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed transaction by agreeing to an
inadequate exchange ratio and engaging in a flawed sales process.
The Delaware Merger Action further alleged that QLT and MergerCo
aided and abetted the alleged breaches.

In addition, the Delaware Merger Action alleged that the September
28, 2016 Amendment No. 2 to Form S-4 Registration Statement filed
in connection with the proposed transaction is materially
misleading. The Flanigon complaint sought, among other things, to
enjoin the proposed transaction, to rescind it or to award
rescissory damages should it be consummated and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Also on October 3, 2016, plaintiff in the Delaware Merger Action
filed motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary
injunction. On October 21, 2016, the Delaware Merger Action was
dismissed without prejudice.

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for patients with debilitating rare diseases.


AIU ONLINE: Bid to Certify Class in "Hodge" Suit Due on May 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2016, in the case
entitled Mary A Hodge v. AIU Online, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-10383 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing was held and continued to May 9, 2017, at
      9:00 a.m.;

   -- All fact discovery is to be completed by May 5, 2017;

   -- All expert discovery will be noticed in time to be
      completed by July 14, 2017;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken
      without prejudice.  Plaintiff has preserved her right;

   -- Plaintiff is given leave to file her class motion by
      May 12, 2017; and

   -- Response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification must
      be filed by June 2, 2017, and reply by June 16, 2017.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KrT7kGr9


AKORN INC: UFCW Local Files Suit Over Clobetasol Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC., FOUGERA
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., MORTON GROVE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PERRIGO NEW YORK INC., SANDOZ, INC., TARO
PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., and WOCKHARDT USA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09392 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2016), was brought
for claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover
damages and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the
substantial injuries the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
have sustained against Defendants' alleged conspiracy to raise the
prices of clobetasol propionate topical gel, cream, ointment,
solution, and emollient products, as well as to allocate markets
and customers for clobetasol in the United States.

Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. is a New York-based
pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     Domenico Minerva, Esq.
     Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
     Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
     Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
     Rudi Julius, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             dminerva@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             mperez@labaton.com
             rjulius@labaton.com

        - and -

     Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
     Paul Costa, Esq.
     Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
     FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 567-6565
     Fax: (215) 568-5872
     E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             pcosta@finekaplan.com
             apessin@finekaplan.com


AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: "Davis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warren Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Al-Flex Exterminators, Inc. and Alexander E.
Napoles, Defendants, Case No.1:16-cv-24994 (S.D. Fla., December 1,
2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages
for economic losses caused by non-payment of overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs of this action and any such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a pest control company located in Miami-Dade
County, with its principal address at 4035 SW 98 Street, Miami,
Florida, where Plaintiff worked. He claims to have been denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Moriarty, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
      201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 913-1300
      Email: RMoniarty@LevineBlit.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Indirect Buyers' Suit over Asacol(R) Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that indirect purchaser plaintiffs' antitrust class action
related to Asacol(R) remains pending.

On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in
federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they
paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and
Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market
for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on
behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising
similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
complaint. A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11,
2016.

On July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion
in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims
based on purported reverse payments and dismissed several of
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on state laws.

On August 15, 2016,the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  The Company filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on October 4, 2016.


ALLERGAN PLC: Seeks to Dismissal Direct Buyers' Suit Over Asacol
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the direct purchasers'
consolidated complaint related to Asacol(R) remains pending.

A complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct
purchasers of Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26,
2016.  The direct purchaser complaint makes similar allegations to
the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

On May 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer the direct
purchaser action to the federal court in Massachusetts where it
could be consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases.

Two additional direct purchaser putative class action complaints
were filed in federal court in New York on June 29, 2016.

On September 7, 2016, direct purchaser plaintiffs agreed to
transfer the cases filed in New York to the federal court in
Massachusetts where they were consolidated.

On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' consolidated complaint.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Opposed Class Certification Bid in Botox(R) Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company has filed an opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the Botox(R) class action
litigation.

On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in
federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market
allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act,
Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and
violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200
et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on May 29, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial
summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to
the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016. The
court held oral argument on plaintiff's motion on March 4, 2016
and took the matter under submission.

On May 31, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial
summary judgment or adjudication.

On June 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's denial of the motion.  On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification.  On October 14, 2016, the
Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan Asks Third Circuit for Rehearing En Banc
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. has petitioned the Third
Circuit for a rehearing en banc in the Doryx(R) Litigation.

In July 2012, Mylan filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and
Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in
Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or
delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R)
products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and
tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective economic
relationships under Pennsylvania state law. In the complaint,
Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed by
purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed
in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual
capacities.

In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege
that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R)
products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without
prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott
and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual
retailer plaintiffs.

Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on
March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order
granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment,
denying Mylan's summary judgment motion and entering judgment in
favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan  appealed
the district court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 28, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its
decision and affirmed the ruling of the district court. On October
12, 2016 Mylan petitioned the Third Circuit for a rehearing en
banc.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar
suits will be filed.


ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Omnibus Bids to Dismiss Loestrin(R) 24 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the defendants in the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation have
filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of the direct
purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and
individual direct purchaser plaintiffs.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class were filed in the federal
district court against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates
alleging that Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit settlements
with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe
(norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous
fumarate tablets, "Loestrin(R) 24") were unlawful. The complaints,
both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors,
generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints
each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In
addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of a class of direct payors.

After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order
transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court
for the District of Rhode Island.

On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral
argument was held on December 7, 2015.

On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.  On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class
plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct
purchaser plaintiffs.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs' Answer to Amended Namenda Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Forest Laboratories, Inc. has filed an answer to the
amended complaint in the Namenda(R) litigation.

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise
limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until
the conclusion of the litigation.

A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state's preliminary
injunction motion.

On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting
the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December
15, 2014.

On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the preliminary injunction.

On June 5, 2015, Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit
for rehearing en banc which was denied. Forest and the New York
Attorney General reached a settlement on November 24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed
on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers.

The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and
generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions
to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers. On September 13, 2016, the court
issued a decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.

On September 27, 2016 the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses and intends to defend both its brand and generic
defendant entities vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Vacated Dismissal of Zymar Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
vacated the District Court's granting of Allergan's motion to
dismiss the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Litigation.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%
and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss.

Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending
resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in
Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew.

On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed Allergan's
motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to
Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan's motion to
dismiss. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit oral argument was held on June 13, 2016.  On
September 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the District Court's granting of Allergan's motion to
dismiss and remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: District Court Stays Discovery in Celexa Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the district court judge has entered an Order staying
discovery in a Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action until the First
Circuit renders a decision on plaintiffs' 23(f) petition.

Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates were named as
defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of
individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court
Massachusetts (the "Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two
of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class
actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class
action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims
under the state consumer protection statutes and state common
laws.

Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified
California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes.
However, only the Missouri state class was certified.

Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs
to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for
$7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35
million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On
September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the
settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed
in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who
purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that our
promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been
deceptive.

On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this
complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20,
2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint,
ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party
payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014,
the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under
Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion. A motion for class certification
was filed in February, 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition with the First
Circuit requesting leave to appeal the denial of class
certification.  The district court judge entered an Order dated
August 8, 2016, staying discovery in the case until the First
Circuit renders a decision on plaintiffs' 23(f) petition.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in
Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a
nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state
common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court
granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December
12, 2014 ruling.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in
off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.
On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs
thereafter filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On June 9, 2016, the court denied Forest's
motion.

Forest and certain of its affiliates were also named as defendants
in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court.
These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in
the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One
action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed
on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf
of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached
agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to
resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


AMERICAN BREAD: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bread
Company, LLC. The case is captioned JESSICA SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06294-MSG (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Mitchell S. Goldberg.

American Bread provides bakery products. The Company offers
donuts, sandwiches, crust bread, crumb cakes, salads, and soups.
American Bread serves customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AMPARTS SOURCING: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
PERLA MARTINEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMPARTS SOURCING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01222 (W.D. Tex., December 2, 2016),
alleges that Defendant has failed and refused to pay its
bookkeepers at time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Amparts Sourcing, Inc. is a motor vehicle supplies and new part
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
     MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     13590 Ranch Road 12
     Wimberley, TX 78676
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Web site: http://www.morelandlaw.com
     E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


ANDERSON PERFORATING: Phillips et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PHILLIPS, COREY ALTENBERG, SLONE BALLIEW, JEFF BALLIEW,
DIRK BOYTE, JIMMY BROOKS, JASON DAVIS, BROCK JONES, JOHN LUCAS,
KELBY VAUGHN, ROY BALLIEW, PATRICK DYAL, CHRIS EDGAR, JOSH
FOEGELLE, ZACHARY NIEMEIER, TROY PRINCE, JAMES STEPHENSON,
STEVEN SUTTON, and TIMOTHY WILSON, Individually and on behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated vs.  ANDERSON PERFORATING SERVICES,
LLC; ANDERSON PERFORATING GP, LLC; and RONNIE ANDERSON, DONNIE
ANDERSON and JUSTIN ANDERSON, Case No. No. 5:16-cv-1230 (W.D.
Tex., December 5, 2016), seeks recovery of monetary damages for
overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Anderson Perforating Services, LLC provides products and services
in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those
areas in which fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Trilogy and Danner Actions Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' renewed injunction request,
staying the actions, Trilogy Portfolio Company, L.L.C., et al. v.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.),
and Danner v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973
(S.D.N.Y.), through Plan confirmation.

On September 3, 2014, institutional investors allegedly holding
approximately $137 million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued
CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for breach of contract and the
implied covenant of good faith, Trust Indenture Act ("TIA")
violations, and a declaratory judgment challenging the August 2014
private financing transaction in which a portion of outstanding
senior unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars Entertainment,
and a majority of the noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to
terminate Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of the notes and
modify certain restrictions on CEOC's ability to sell assets.

Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to dismiss on
November 12, 2014.

On January 15, 2015, the New York Court granted the motion with
respect to a TIA claim by Trilogy but otherwise denied the motion.

On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
relief against Caesars Entertainment only, and Caesars
Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015.

On October 2, 2014, a related putative class action complaint was
filed on behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.),
against Caesars Entertainment alleging claims similar to those in
the Trilogy Action.

On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and
Caesars Entertainment answered the amended complaint on February
25, 2015.

In March 2015, each of Trilogy and Danner served subpoenas for
documents on Apollo. Apollo produced responsive, non-privileged
documents in response to those subpoenas.

In July 2015, Trilogy and Danner served subpoenas for depositions
on Apollo and those depositions were completed on September 22,
2015.

On October 23, 2015, Trilogy and Danner filed motions for partial
summary judgment, related to TIA and breach of contract claims. On
December 29, 2015, the New York Court denied the motions for
partial summary judgment.

On March 23, 2016, the judge presiding over the Trilogy and Danner
Actions announced that she was retiring from the bench effective
April 28, 2016. A new judge was assigned to preside over the
Trilogy and Danner Actions.

On April 6, 2016, the parties agreed to a renewed summary judgment
schedule for the Trilogy, Danner, BOKF, UMB SDNY and Wilmington
Trust Actions. The moving parties submitted their briefs to the
New York Court on May 10, 2016. Opposition briefs were filed on
May 31, 2016. Reply briefs were filed on June 14, 2016.

On June 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Section
105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the plaintiffs in the
Trilogy and Danner Actions from prosecuting actions against
Caesars Entertainment until August 29, 2016.

On October 17, 2016, after several motions and appeals relating to
extending the stay past August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court
granted the Debtors' renewed injunction request, staying the
Trilogy and Danner Actions through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to
the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all
claims relating to the Trilogy and Danner Actions.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the
case, In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, the
parties' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
remains pending.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne
v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January
21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action").

The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak
v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was
filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action").  The Solak Action
was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014.

The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon
v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on
January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action").

The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana
Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al.,
Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions").

A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v.
Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County
Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was
dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other
things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the
merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in
limited discovery.

On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was
brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder
Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings
Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and
its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that CEC's
former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to
impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially
deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further
alleges that two members of the board who also served as the
senior managers of CEC had material conflicts of interest and that
Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result
of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The consolidated
complaint seeks, among other things, to recover damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved
to dismiss the complaint. Although Apollo cannot predict the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated action, and therefore no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time, Apollo believes that such action is without merit.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: No Argument Date Yet on Bid to Dismiss Silva Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has not set a date for argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the case by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson.

On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ("California Court") by Rachel Silva ("Silva") and Don
Hudson ("Hudson"), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life
Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA
Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene
Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM.

The original complaint in this action alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs alleged that commencing
in 2007 and continuing thereafter, Aviva and its then management
engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the
financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of
Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities
to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates,
misvaluing assets, and failing to make required disclosures to
purchasers of policies, and that after Athene Holding purchased
all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October
2, 2013 the scheme was "unwound and rewound" so as to continue,
and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity
products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were
damaged as a result thereof.

All defendants (except Aviva plc) (a) moved to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa ("Iowa Court") and (b) moved to dismiss this
action. Aviva plc separately moved to dismiss the action for lack
of jurisdiction over it.

The California Court granted the motion to transfer to the Iowa
Court and denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff Hudson moved for leave to amend the complaint, which
motion was granted by the Iowa Court. The amended complaint
removed Silva as a named plaintiff and removed Aviva plc as a
defendant, but otherwise substantively makes the same or similar
allegations.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and
that motion has been fully briefed. The Court has not set a date
for argument on this motion yet.

If the action is not dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM
(and the other defendants) will deny the material allegations of
the amended complaint and will vigorously defend themselves
against these claims. Although neither Athene Asset Management nor
AGM can predict the ultimate outcome of this action, each believes
that it is without merit, and because this action is in its early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Arrow Merger Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral
argument was scheduled for December 8, 2016.

After the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger among Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc.,
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging the
proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532, and Wiener v. Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A putative class and
derivative lawsuit was later filed in the same Court, captioned
Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-
002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint
includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants
AGM, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI,
Merger Sub and Athene Holding and alleges, among other things,
that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties
to AMTG's stockholders and that the other defendants aided and
abetted such fiduciary breaches. The operative complaint further
alleges, among other things, that the proposed merger involves
inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and
conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers.

It also alleges that the transactions with Athene Holding are
unfair and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with
the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleading
disclosures and omits certain material information. The operative
complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the proposed
class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger, unspecified
damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other
fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.
Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral
argument was scheduled for December 8, 2016.

Apollo believes that the claims asserted in the complaints are
without merit. For this reason, and because the claims are in
their early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if
any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Nov. 2017 Merits Trial Set in Hudson Bay Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
in the Hudson Bay Action and the Verition Action has scheduled a
trial on the merits to take place in November 2017.

Following the March 14, 2016 announcement that The Fresh Market,
Inc. ("TFM") had entered into a merger agreement with certain
entities affiliated with Apollo (the "TFM Merger Agreement"), six
putative shareholder class actions were filed in four courts (one
in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina; two in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; one
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina; and two in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware). Additionally, one individual action demanding
inspection of books and records was filed in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware and two petitions for appraisal of stock
were also filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware.

The first purported class action, captioned Dolores Balint v. The
Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-CVS-4144, was filed on
March 23, 2016 in the North Carolina Superior Court (the "Balint
Action"). The complaint named as defendants TFM, its officers and
directors and certain affiliates of AGM, Pomegranate Holdings,
Inc. ("Pomegranate Holdings") and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc.
("Pomegranate Merger Sub"). The Balint action was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on April 13, 2016.

The second purported class action, captioned Ross DeAmbrogio v.
The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00239-LPS, was
filed April 7, 2016 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM and its officers
and directors (the "DeAmbrogio Action"). The Plaintiff in the
DeAmbrogio Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses on June 29, 2016.

The third purported class action, captioned John Solak v. The
Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00249-SLR, was filed
April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and
directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and
Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Solak Action"). The Plaintiff
in the Solak Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses on June 28, 2016.

The fourth purported class action, captioned Ronald Jantz v. Ray
Berry, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-0307-CCE-JEP, was filed April 11,
2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina and named as defendants TFM and its officers and
directors (the "Jantz Action"). The Plaintiff in the Jantz Action
filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on July 8, 2016.

The fifth purported class action, captioned Bruce S. Sherman, et.
al. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 12205-VCG, was
filed April 14, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of
Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors,
AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. (the "Sherman Action"). The Sherman Action
alleges, among other things, that the TFM officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in
connection with their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger
Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price and by
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
The Sherman Action further alleges that TFM, AGM, Apollo
Management VIII, L.P., Pomegranate Holdings and Pomegranate Merger
Sub, aided and abetted in those alleged breaches.

The sixth action, an individual action captioned Elizabeth
Morrison v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12243-VCG, was filed
April 22, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and
named only TFM as a defendant (the "Morrison Action"). The
Morrison Action sought only the right to inspect certain books and
records of TFM pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate
Code. The Plaintiff in the Morrison Action filed a stipulation of
voluntary dismissal on August 10, 2016 and the case was
administratively closed by the Court thereafter.

The seventh action, a Petition for Appraisal of Stock captioned
Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. and Brigade Leveraged Capital
Structures Fund, Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12372-
VCG, was filed May 23, 2016 and names only TFM as the respondent
(the "Hudson Bay Action"). The Hudson Bay Action was filed on
behalf of holders of 1,660,000 shares of common stock of TFM and
seeks a determination of the fair value of the shares of the
common stock of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware Corporate
Code.

The eighth action, a second Petition for Appraisal of Stock
captioned Verition Multi-Strategy Master Ltd. and Verition
Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc. was filed
August 22, 2016 and names only TFM as the respondent (the
"Verition Action"). The Verition Action was filed on behalf of
holders of 1,198,318 shares of common stock of TFM and seeks a
determination of the fair value of the shares of the common stock
of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware Corporate Code. The
Verition Action has been consolidated with the Hudson Bay Action
and the two will proceed together under the caption, In re
Appraisal of The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12372-VCG.

The ninth action, another purported shareholder class action,
captioned Elizabeth Morrison v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No.
12808-VCG, was filed October 6, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the
State of Delaware and named as defendants TFM's officers and
directors (the "Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action"). This action was
filed by the same plaintiff who filed the Morrison Action. Like
the Sherman Action, the Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action alleges,
among other things, that the TFM officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in connection with
their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger Agreement,
including by engaging in a sale process that improperly favored
AGM and/or Apollo Management VIII, L.P., by agreeing to an
inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures
regarding the transaction. The Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action
further alleges that former TFM director, Brett Berry, aided and
abetted in those alleged breaches.

The Court has not yet set a schedule for resolving either the
Sherman Action or the Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action on the
merits. The Court in the Hudson Bay Action and the Verition Action
has scheduled a trial on the merits to take place in November
2017.

Because each of the pending actions is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made.  Apollo
believes that each of these actions is without merit.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case,
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), is in the early stages.

On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors
(including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings,
LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"),
which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and
two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common
stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015
secondary offering.

The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a
materially misleading registration statement for the secondary
offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's
2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed
to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation.

The two causes of action against the AP Entities are for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for
alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price.

On March 24, 2016, defendants removed the case to United States
District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiff's April 18,
2016 remand motion was fully briefed as of May 27, 2016. Because
this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Threatened to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the
case, In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.), the parties asked
the court to extend the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must file
an amended consolidated complaint or designate an operative
complaint until November 8, 2016, and the Court responded with an
order explaining that the case would be dismissed on December 9,
2016, unless the parties submit a stipulated judgment or
stipulated dismissal before that date, or the court otherwise
extends the deadline for good cause.

Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five
putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education
Group, Inc.  The actions were captioned as follows:  Casey v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-051605 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Feb. 25, 2016); Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., CV2016-003718 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2016); Wagner v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Mar. 9, 2016); Ladouceur v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., CV2016-002148 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2016); Simkhovich v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002339 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Mar. 23, 2016).  The  defendants include, among others, Apollo
Education Group, Inc. ("AEG"), members of AEG's board of
directors, AGM, Fund VIII, AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., which is
a subsidiary of funds affiliated with Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AGM, and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., which is a wholly
owned subsidiary of AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The complaints allege that AEG's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to AEG's stockholders by entering into a merger
agreement that provides for AEG to be acquired by AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc.  Plaintiffs claim
that AEG's directors engaged in a flawed sales process, agreed to
a price that does not adequately compensate AEG's stockholders,
and agreed to certain unfair deal protection terms in connection
with the merger agreement.

Two of the complaints further allege (1) that AEG's directors
breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement, and (2)
that the sales process was flawed because of certain alleged
conflicts with AEG's financial advisors.  All the complaints
allege that AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub,
Inc., aided and abetted the alleged breaches.

The complaints that name as defendants AGM and Fund VIII, allege
that those entities also aided and abetted the alleged breaches.
No amount of damages is specified in any of the complaints.

On April 12, 2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under
the following caption:  In re Apollo Education Group, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct.).

The parties have informed the Court that they have entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
suit. The settlement contemplated by the memorandum will provide
for the dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release of any
and all claims by the proposed class against Defendants. The
settlement also will recognize that the pendency of the suit was a
factor in the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase the
price offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AEG's
common stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share.

The settlement is contingent upon the consummation of the merger
agreement, Plaintiffs' taking confirmatory discovery, the
execution of definitive settlement papers, certification of the
proposed class, and court approval. The parties asked the court to
extend the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must file an amended
consolidated complaint or designate an operative complaint until
November 8, 2016.

The Court responded with an order explaining that the case will be
dismissed on December 9, 2016, unless the parties submit a
stipulated judgment or stipulated dismissal before that date, or
the court otherwise extends the deadline for good cause.  Because
this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Defendant in Rackspace Shareholder Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that following
the August 26, 2016 announcement that Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
("Rackspace") had entered into a merger agreement with certain
entities organized and owned by investment funds managed by AGM
(the "Apollo Merger Entities"), on October 11, 2016, a putative
shareholder class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and named as defendants Rackspace, the directors
of Rackspace, AGM and the Apollo Merger Entities. The case is
captioned Shawn Luger v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 12819-CB. The complaint purports to assert a claim
against the directors of Rackspace for allegedly breaching their
fiduciary duty of disclosure In connection with the Definitive
Proxy Statement filed by Rackspace with the SEC on September 30,
2016 (the "Rackspace Proxy Statement"), and also purports to
assert a claim against Rackspace, AGM and the Apollo Merger
Entities for allegedly aiding and abetting this alleged breach of
fiduciary duty by the directors of Rackspace. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Rackspace Proxy Statement
failed to provide material information and/or omitted material
information concerning the proposed acquisition of Rackspace. The
complaint seeks to enjoin the consummation of the proposed
acquisition of Rackspace, or to rescind it (or award rescissory
damages) in the event it is consummated, and requests an award to
the class of compensatory damages, an award to plaintiff of costs,
attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other equitable relief. AGM
and the Apollo Merger Entities believe these claims are without
merit. As this case is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Siegel" Suit Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the case captioned JODI SIEGEL, Plaintiff, v.
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CHRISTOPHER R. ANZALONE, and
KENNETH A. MYSZKOWSKI, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08954 (C.D.
Cal., December 2, 2016), alleges individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, that Defendants publicly issued
false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material
facts regarding the development of its three clinical-stage drugs,
in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (310) 209-2468
     Fax: (310) 209-2087
     E-mail: service@ssbla.com

        - and -

     Melissa Emert, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 687-7230
     Fax: (212) 490-2022
     E-mail: memert@ssbny.com


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal of Dismissal Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lead
plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's dismissal order and
their motion to vacate and reconsider the court's judgment remain
pending.

The Company said, "Two class action lawsuits have been filed
against us and certain of our former officers and members of our
board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul
Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-
JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine
Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-
JLT, filed on May 31, 2013."

"On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint
was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to
be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased our common
stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended
complaint generally alleged that we and certain of our present and
former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for our TIVO-1
study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug
would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"The consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without
prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a
second amended complaint bringing similar allegations.

"We moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing
and oral argument, the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the
second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015.

"The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They have
also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's
judgment, which we have opposed.

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no
assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that
insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or
judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss at this time."

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics
for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.


BCB BANCORP: Plaintiff's Bid for $1-Mil. in Fees Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has not
scheduled a hearing date for the Fee Motion in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its
own corporate capacity, was a named defendant in a shareholder
class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery
Division, General Equity (the "Action").

On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final
Judgment ("Judgment"), whereby the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and
the remaining defendants was approved.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the plaintiff class's counsel
reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees and litigation
expenses ("Fees Motion"). The maximum amount which may be awarded
as a result of the Fees Motion is $1,000,000.00.

The plaintiff class's counsel has made a Fee Motion to the court
seeking a final award of counsel fees and litigation expenses of
approximately $1,000,000.00. The Company and the remaining
defendants have vigorously opposed that motion.

It is anticipated that the plaintiff class's counsel will submit a
reply to the opposition filed by the Company and the remaining
defendants. The court has not scheduled a hearing date for the Fee
Motion.


BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Faces "West" Suit in S.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benjamin Restaurant
Group, LLC. The case is styled Mary West, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benjamin
Restaurant Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09387
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016).

Founded in 2006, the family owned and operated Benjamin Restaurant
Group has grown to comprise some of the New York metro areas
premier culinary destinations offering high quality food in
luxurious environments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


BLU PRODUCTS: Phones Contain Spyware, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Debenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action in Los Angeles claims that spyware in
thousands of inexpensive Android cellphones may have secretly
transmitted purchasers' personal data, contacts and text messages
to a server in China.

Lead plaintiff Darren Martinez claims Miami-based phone maker Blu
Products knowingly used low-level control software from co-
defendant Shanghai Adups Technology Co. and its subsidiary Adups
USA, which included the undisclosed spyware. The software was set
to send users' personal data to an Adups server in Shangai every
72 hours.

"Unbeknown to the class, they had purchased mobile phones that
contained extensive spyware that was intercepting, collecting and
retransmitting information and data that they entered into the
products during their ordinary use," according to the Dec. 2
complaint.

Martinez lives in Los Angeles, co-plaintiff Joe Mocnik in
Tennessee. A similar class action against the same defendants was
filed on Nov. 22 in Miami Federal Court. All citations in this
article are from the Los Angeles lawsuit.

At least 120,000 Blu Products phones sold this year contain the
suspect Adups software embedded in the software layer known as
"firmware," the complaint states.

Shanghai Adups makes the control firmware used in more than 700
million cellphones, tablets, automobiles and other devices,
including many Blu Products devices. The Chinese company claims a
70 percent market share for such software in more than 150
countries.

News about the alleged spyware broke Nov. 15 in a report from
computer security company Kryptowire. The company discovered that
Blu Products phones with recent Adups firmware would transmit
users' full text messages, contact lists, call histories and
unique device identifiers.

"The firmware could target specific users and text messages
matching remotely defined keywords," the Kryptowire report states.
It also could execute system commands and reprogram the phones.

After the Kryptowire report, Adups apologized in a statement and
issued updated firmware without the security vulnerabilities.

Blu Products said it moved quickly to upload the replacement
firmware on its phones.

"Our customers' privacy and security are of the upmost importance
and priority," the company said in a statement.

In a separate statement, Adups said it had created the
information-transmitting application for unnamed clients who
sought ways for users to flag and screen out junk texts and calls.

In June, some Blu Products devices received firmware that
"inadvertently included" that application, the company said. It
said that all the data from those devices has been deleted, and
none was shared with outsiders.

"This is a private company that made a mistake," an attorney for
Adups told The New York Times.

Martinez's attorney, Lawrence M. Rosen of Los Angeles, said he
does not discuss his cases in the press.

His lawsuit presents a different view of what happened.

"The defendants knew that the products utilized the Adups
spyware," which "created serious security vulnerabilities,
interfered detrimentally with the user experience, and otherwise
rendered the products unfit for the purposes of which they were
sold," the complaint states.

It adds that Adups markets its services to companies that need
"big data" analytics and that users' personal information was sent
to a server at the address "bigdata.adups.com."

"Despite this awareness, the defendants caused the software to be
installed because it financially benefited from the software
through the use and review of the data intercepted," according to
the 40-page complaint.

It's not enough that the defendants have apologized and replaced
the offending application, the complaint states. "Despite the
firmware update that purports to remove the spyware functions, the
defendants, at any time, can push an update to the products that
restarts the spyware functionality," it claims.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and damages of up to
$10,000 per user plus punitive damages for violations of the
federal Wiretap Act and the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
and for breach of warranty, fraud, deceptive advertising,
negligence, invasion of privacy and violations of 20 states'
consumer protection laws.

In the Miami class action, lead plaintiff Aaron Bonds, of Alabama,
is represented by Amy Zeman, with the Gibbs Law Group, of Miami
Beach, assisted by Daniel Girard, with Girard Gibbs, in San
Francisco.

Rosen's law firm is assisted by Philip Kin and Christopher Hinton,
both of New York City.

The case is captioned, DARREN MARTINEZ AND JOE MOCNIK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, vs. BLU PRODUCTS, INC., SHANGHAI ADUPS TECHNOLOGY CO.,
LTD., and ADUPS USA LLC, Defendants (C.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
          THE HINTON LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 723-3377
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          Email: chinton@hintonlegal.com


BOTANAS II LLC: "Diaz-Ortiz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Javier Diaz-Ortiz a/k/a Anahi Diaz-Ortiz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Botanas II, LLC d/b/a
Botanas II Mexican Restaurant and Martha Navejar, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01596 (E.D. Wis., December 1, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, civil penalties, costs, attorneys' fees
and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Defendants operate the Botanas II Mexican Restaurant located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin where Diaz-Ortiz worked as a bartender. He
claims to have been denied overtime for work in excess of forty
hours in a given workweek.

Plaintiff was represented by:

      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: 414-271-8650
      Fax: 414-271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


BRAND PLUMBING: McFeeters Seeks to Certify Class of Plumbers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DUANE MCFEETERS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. BRAND PLUMBING, INC.,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01122-EFM-KGS (D. Kan.), moves the Court for an
order finding that he has met his burden under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) with regards to his Fair Labor Standards Act claims and
conditionally certifying his claim as a collective action.

Mr. McFeeters also seeks an order authorizing notice to be mailed
to a class composed of all current and former employees of Brand
Plumbing, who held the position of plumber, who were not paid any
overtime premium for hours over 40 in any work week, from December
1, 2013, to the present as a consequence of not being credited and
compensated for driving time in a company truck.  He asks the
Court to require the Defendant to (i) provide him the names, last-
known addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of the
individual's social security number and date of birth of all
members of the putative class, and (ii) post notice of the lawsuit
in conspicuous locations where it employs its employees.  He
further asks to be appointed as as Class Representative and his
counsel as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald N. Peterson, Esq.
          Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
          GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
          218 N. Mosley St.
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 266-4058
          Facsimile: (316) 462-5566
          E-mail: don@graybillhazlewood.com
                  sean@graybillhazlewood.com


BULLDOG OILFIELD: Faces "Yorba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Yorba, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Bulldog Oilfield Services, Inc. and Brian K. Sneed, Case No.
5:16-cv-01656 (W.D. La., November 30, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bulldog Oilfield Services, Inc. operates a full service Frac Water
Transfer company located in Shreveport, Louisiana.  It also
conducts business in North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Goudelocke, Esq.
      DURIO, MCGOFFIN, STAGG & ACKERMANN
      220 Heymann Blvd. P.O. Box 51308 (70505)
      Lafayette, LA 70503
      Telephone: (337) 233-0300
      Facsimile: (337) 233-0694
      E-mail: ryan@dmsfirm.com


CANDELA CORP: Body-Shaping System Doesn't Work, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class in Chicago Cook
County claims that Candela Corporation's Ultrashape body-shaping
system, which is supposed to allow patients to drop two dress
sizes in three treatments, does not work as advertised.

The case is Renee Burke, MD, P.C., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Candela Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2016CH15692, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
December 2, 2016.

Attorneys to the Plaintiff:

         Law Offices of Arnold H. Landis, Esq.
         77 W. Washington, Ste. 702
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Tel: 312-236-6268


CARBYLAN THERAPEUTICS: Voluntary Class Action Dismissal Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda
(the "Court") on October 31, 2016, approved a voluntary dismissal
of the purported stockholder class action complaint filed in the
Court on September 26, 2016 against certain members of the board
of directors and certain executives of Carbylan Therapeutics,
Inc., as well as against KalVista Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Wedbush
Securities Inc. and certain unknown employees of Wedbush, entitled
Laidlaw v. Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG16832665.


CARDINAL INNOVATIONS: Kirkpatrick Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MOLLY KIRKPATRICK, on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CARDINAL
INNOVATIONS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:16-cv-01088-TDS-LPA
(M.D.N.C.), moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying
and approving notice to this Fair Labor Standards Act collective
class:

     All persons who are, have been, or will be employed by
     Defendant as I/DD Care Coordinators within the State of
     North Carolina at any time within the last three years (the
     "I/DD Care Coordinator Collective Class").

Ms. Kirkpatrick also asks the Court to order Cardinal to provide
her counsel the names, job locations, dates of employment, mailing
addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all persons who
are, have been, or will be employed by the Defendant as I/DD Care
Coordinators within the state of North Carolina at any time within
the last three years.  She also seeks authority to mail and e-mail
her proposed notice and consent forms to the putative class
members, and approval of a 90-day opt-in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U9bGAZeZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Strianese, Esq.
          Tamara L. Huckert, Esq.
          STRIANESE PLLC
          401 North Tryon St., 10th Floor
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 998-2577
          Facsimile: (704) 998-5301
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
                  tamara@strilaw.com


CARTER'S RETAIL: Wins Final Nod of $472,500 Deal in "Dudum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of class action settlement and their motion for
attorneys' fees and costs in the lawsuit titled JULIE DUDUM, et
al. v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC., Case No. 3:14-cv-00988-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).

The Settlement Class includes all current and former hourly
employees of the Defendant, who worked in the State of California
from January 27, 2010, through and including January 15, 2015, and
who (a) received one or more bonus payments during the class
period; and (b) worked overtime at any point during the class
period.

In full settlement of the claims asserted, the Defendant agrees to
pay $472,500.  The Settlement Agreement provides that the
disbursable settlement amount will be allocated to class members
based on two factors.

The Court approves payment of attorneys' fees for $150,488, costs
for $7,012, estimated settlement administration costs of $13,599,
service awards for $5,000 for each named Plaintiff, and payment of
$4,000 to cover penalties under the Private Attorney General Act.
The Parties and Settlement Administrator are directed to implement
this Final Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the provisions
governing distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

The Court grants final certification of the class, and confirms
the appointment of John McIntyre of Shea & McIntyre, A.P.C. and
Cary Kletter of Kletter + Nguyen Law, LLP as co-lead counsel.  The
Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter Final Judgment
consistent with this order, and to close the case.

The Settlement Agreement provides that unclaimed settlement funds
above a 50% floor will revert to the Defendant.

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


CHANG LUNG: Faces "Jian" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chang Lung Group
Inc. The case is titled Jian Hua Li, individually and on behalf of
all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHANG
LUNG GROUP INC. and Tommy Zhou, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06722 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016).

Chang Lung Group is a busing and tourist services company.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CIM GROUP: Faces "Savickaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lina Savickaite, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CIM Group, LP and Does 1 through 25, Case
No. BC642234 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 30, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

CIM Group, LP operates a real estate investment firm in Dallas,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
      Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
      GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
      15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (213) 542-2100
      Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
      E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com
              rgundzik@gghslaw.com

         - and -

      Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
      Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
      Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq.
      CASKEY & HOLZMAN
      24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 657-1070
      Facsimile: (818) 297-1775


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Clovis
Defendants, along with the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture
Capital Defendants' Motion to Dismiss remains pending.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market
success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported
Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set
forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The
Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and
November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was
filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran
Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the
Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf
of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October
31, 2013 and November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported
shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco
Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock
between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the
District of Colorado and the Northern District of California
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff
movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications
LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non-
opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to
transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the
"Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a statement in the Northern District of California
supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the
District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District
of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff
motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support
of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of
non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016,
the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order
addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado
actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro
and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also
appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the
putative class.

On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a
stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a
consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions
(the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto,
including the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and
related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a
decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was
entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject to
further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the Arkin
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016.

The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers (the "Clovis
Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants")
for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the "July
2015 Offering") and certain Company venture capital investors (the
"Venture Capital Defendants"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges
that defendants violated particular sections of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The purported misrepresentations
and omissions concern allegedly misleading statements about
rociletinib. The putative class action is purportedly brought on
behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between
May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act
claims) and investors who purchased the Company's securities
pursuant or traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to
the Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages.

On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco and Moran actions were
consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the
District of Colorado.

The Clovis Defendants, along with the Underwriter Defendants and
the Venture Capital Defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss on July
27, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September
23, 2016, and the defendants filed their replies on October 14,
2016.

The Clovis Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco
Complaints, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be
successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United
States, Europe and other international markets.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Pension Fund's Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the San Mateo
Superior Court has granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings
in the lawsuit by Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health
& Welfare Trusts.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and
Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed
a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors,
investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The
Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the
July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval
and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The
Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the
District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County
Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the
Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District
of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the
Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to
the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the Northern District of
California issued a written decision and order granting the Motion
to Remand the case to the Superior Court, County of San Mateo and
denying the Motion to Transfer as moot.

While the case was pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, the parties entered into a
stipulation extending the defendants' time to respond to the
Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of
an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff
of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint.
Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an
amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the July
2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital investors. The
Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities
Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis' offering documents
for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended Complaint includes new
allegations about the Company's rociletinib disclosures. The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Pursuant to a briefing schedule ordered by the court on July 28,
2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the Electrical Workers
action pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran, and Rocco
actions in the District of Colorado ("Motion to Stay"), and a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint, on August 15, 2016; plaintiffs
filed their oppositions on August 31, 2016; and the defendants
filed their reply briefs on September 15, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the San Mateo
Superior Court granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings
pending resolution of the related securities class action
captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No. 1:15-cv-
2546 (the "Colorado Action").  Per the order to stay proceedings,
the San Mateo Superior Court will defer issuing a ruling on
defendants' pending demurrer, and the parties' first status report
as to the progress of the Colorado Action is due on March 23,
2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there
can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United
States, Europe and other international markets.


CUBESMART: Faces "Coleman" Class Suit in South. District Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against CubeSmart.

The case is captioned Jerry Lee Coleman, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. CubeSmart, Case No. 1:16-cv-
25009-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2016).

CubeSmart is a real estate investment trust and provider of self-
storage facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
      Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq.
      LEON COSGROVE LLC
      255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 740-1986
      Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
      E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
              scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com

         - and -

      Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq.
      David Buckner, Esq.
      Seth Eric Miles, Esq.
      BUCKNER + MILES
      3350 Mary Street
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 964-8003
      Facsimile: (786) 523-0485
      E-mail: vonborke@bucknermiles.com
              David@bucknermiles.com
              seth@bucknermiles.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces "Wells" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Restaurants,
Inc. The case is entitled ELIZABETH WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DARDEN
RESTAURANTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06295-GJP (E.D.
Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Gerald J.
Pappert.

Darden Restaurants is an American multi-brand restaurant operator
headquartered in Orlando.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Wins Prelim. OK of "Palmer" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron grants the parties' amended renewed joint
motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class
settlement filed in the lawsuit captioned RAY PALMER, JR. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DYNAMIC
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-
00059-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.).  The Court certified this class:

     (i) All persons with addresses in Florida; (ii) to whom
     Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC sent, or caused to
     be sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A attached to the
     Complaint on behalf of Defendant Cascade Capital LLC; (iii)
     in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally due Bank
     of America; (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the
     alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the
     original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
     household purposes; (v) on which the last payment was made
     five or more years prior to the date of mailing of the
     letter in the form of Exhibit A; and (vi) during the year
     prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action
     through the date of certification.

The Court appoints (i) Ray Palmer, Jr., as lead Plaintiff and
Class Representative, and (ii) Donald E. Petersen, Esq., and O.
Randolph Bragg, Esq., as lead Class Counsel.

The December 19, 2016 fairness hearing is cancelled.  A hearing on
the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement and final
approval will be held on February 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

The Court approves the proposed form of notice to the Class, which
will be directed to the last known address of the Class members as
shown on the Defendants' records.  The Defendant's counsel will
arrange for third party administrator, First Class, Inc., to mail
the notice to Class members by December 16, 2016, and upon the
Court's final approval of Class Settlement, for payment to be
distributed pursuant to the Agreement to those Class members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fhuNgw9e


EBS SECURITY: "Lockley" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Lockley, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EBS SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-01500-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act; minimum wages under the Florida Constitution; and
alleged unpaid wages under the Florida statutes.

EBS SECURITY, INC. offers security services including government
contracting, construction sites, special events security, private
investigations, and body guard services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. John Gadd, Esq.
     Bank America Building
     2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste 250
     Clearwater, FL 33762
     Phone: (727) 524-6300
     E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Suit Over Constact Contact Deal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the defendants have not yet answered or otherwise
responded to either of the Complaints related to the Constant
Contact acquisition.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and
on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al.
Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry
Complaint, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant
Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally allege, among
other things, that in connection with the acquisition the
directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell
Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration,
engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing
to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The
Complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the acquisition,
as well as award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the
action.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to
either of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims
asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend to defend
against these lawsuits vigorously.

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary
company, EIG Investors Corp., its primary operating subsidiary
company, The Endurance International Group, Inc., and other
subsidiary companies of EIG.  The Company is a provider of cloud-
based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized
businesses succeed online.


EPIC SYSTEMS: "Schultz" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
SCHULTZ, K., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION c/o Judith R.
Faulkner, 1979 Milky Way Verona, Wisconsin 53593, Defendant, Case
No. 16-cv-797 (W.D. Wis., December 2, 2016), alleges that
Defendants were denied overtime wages under an illegal pay policy
whereby they were commonly misclassified as exempt from overtime
wages under state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- http://www.epic.com/-- develops,
installs, and supports software for medical groups, hospitals, and
integrated healthcare organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Zoeller, Esq.
     William E. Parsons, Esq.
     Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
     Katelynn M. Williams, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     Post Office Box 2155
     Madison, WI 53701-2155
     Phone: 608-257-0040
     Fax: 608-256-0236
     Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com
            wparsons@hq-law.com
            cmadden@hq-law.com
            kwilliams@hq-law.com

          - and -

     Daniel A. Rottier, Esq.
     Jason Knutson, Esq.
     Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
     HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C.
     150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000
     Madison, WI 53703
     Phone: 608-255-6663
     Fax: 608-255-0745
     Email: rottier@habush.com
            jknutson@habush.com
            bsnapp@habush.com


ESA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Delaughter" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against ESA Management
LLC.

The case is captioned Cynthia Delaughter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESA Management LLC,
Case No. 8:16-cv-03302-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2016).

ESA Management LLC is engaged in the motel and hotel management
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com

FCA US LLC: Automotive Diesel Emissions Hit in "Chavez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Robert Bosch GmBH, a corporation organized under the laws
of Germany; and Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06909, (N.D. Cal., December
1, 2016), seeks to temporarily and permanently enjoin FCA and
Bosch from continuing unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent and unfair
business practices; injunctive relief in the form of a recall or
free replacement program; restitution including recovery of the
purchase price of their affected vehicles, or the overpayment or
diminution in value of such; damages, including punitive damages;
costs and disgorgement; monetary relief under certain consumer
protection statutes; pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded; award of costs and attorneys' fees and such other
or further relief as may be appropriate resulting from fraudulent
concealment and violation of various state consumer protection and
trade practice laws and regulations.

Chavez purchased a new model year 2016 Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel
from Hilltop Chrysler Jeep Dodge. Its EcoDiesel engine allegedly
emitted excessive level of pollutants.

FCA US LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is wholly owned by
holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch
corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom. FCA's
principal place of business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills,
Michigan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

     Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Babcock" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Babcock, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas,
Inc., Stephen L. Wambold and Alan C. Heitmann, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-09294, (S.D. N.Y., December 1, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary, equitable and/or
injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ferrellgas Partners, LP is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware with its principal offices located in Overland Park,
Kansas, mainly into propane distribution. Ferrellgas, Inc. is the
general partner of Ferrellgas.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that low oil prices were
negatively impacting business operation, the Company was
increasingly over-leveraged, it was unable to operate under the
terms of its credit facility and accounts receivable
securitization facility and that the Company would be forced to
reduce its quarterly distribution. Ferrellgas' share price fell
$3.50 per share upon dissemination of the news, to close at $13.00
per share -- a decline of 21.2% on unusually heavy trading volume.
The stock price has continued to decline, dropping to $8.00 per
share as of November 1, 2016, a decline of over 50% of its value.

Babcock purchased securities of Ferrellgas at artificially
inflated prices and has lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIREEYE INC: Defending Against Stockholder Suit California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a stockholder class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former
members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers,
and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering.
On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the same defendants. The actions were
consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was
filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief."

"On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the
amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court
overruled defendants' demurrers. On January 6, 2016, the Company
and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on April 1,
2016.

"On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the
court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On
September 8, 2016, the court of appeal denied the petition.

"On September 16, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California.
On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of the putative class, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on July 11, 2016. The Company intends to
defend the litigation vigorously.

"Based on information currently available, the Company has
determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable," the Company said.

FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in
stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero-
day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics.


FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that no ruling has been
issued on the Defendants' motion to dismiss a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers.

On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities between January 2, 2014, and November 4,
2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.

On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
was heard on November 12, 2015. No ruling has been issued on the
motion. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in
stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero-
day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics.


TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against litigation related to TRC/TRP
Merger.

On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "State
Court Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action and derivative
lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against TRC, TRP (as a
nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of TRP GP
(the "TRP GP Board") and Merger Sub (collectively, the "State
Court Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Leslie Blumberg et al.
v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No. 2015-75481, in the 234th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (the "State Court
Lawsuit"). The State Court Plaintiffs amended the State Court
Lawsuit on July 26, 2016.

The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action
challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court
Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board
breached express and/or implied duties under the Partnership
Agreement and (ii) TRC, TRP GP, and Merger Sub aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches of duties. The State Court Plaintiffs
further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's
unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include
a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock
price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that
allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from
seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching
rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process
leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair, (e) the TRP GP Board
had conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of TRP GP, (f) the
TRP GP Conflicts Committee's financial advisor was conflicted and
conducted flawed analyses, and (g) the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger
(the "Proxy") failed to disclose allegedly material information
concerning, among other things, (i) the TRC and TRP projections
included in the Proxy, and (ii) the analyses conducted by the TRP
GP Conflicts Committee's financial advisor in connection with the
TRC/TRP Merger.  Based on these allegations, the State Court
Plaintiffs seek damages and attorneys' fees.

On February 26 and 29, 2016, the State Court Defendants filed
general denials and asserted affirmative defenses. On August 26,
2016, the State Court Defendants filed Special Exceptions and a
Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to have the State Court
Lawsuit dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Special
Exceptions and Motion for Summary Judgment are pending before the
Court.

The State Court Defendants cannot predict the outcome of this or
any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of
the filing of this report, nor can the State Court Defendants
predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to
resolve such litigation. The State Court Defendants believe the
State Court Lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend
vigorously against this lawsuit and any other actions that
challenge the TRC/TRP Merger.

Targa is engaged in the business of: gathering, compressing,
treating, processing and selling natural gas; storing,
fractionating, treating, transporting and selling natural gas
liquids and NGL products, including services to LPG exporters;
gathering, storing and terminaling crude oil; and storing,
terminaling and selling refined petroleum products.


FITBIT INC: Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit Set for May 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that trial is scheduled
for May 30, 2017, in the Sleep Tracking class action lawsuit.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available
in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs
seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs have amended
their complaint four times, and on January 15, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2016,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Trial is currently
scheduled for May 30, 2017.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Hearing Held on Issue of Arbitrability
--------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that in the Heart Rate
Tracking class action, a hearing was set for November 10, 2016, on
whether the issue of arbitrability should be decided by the
arbitrator.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California, alleging that
the PurePulse heart rate tracking technology in the Fitbit Charge
HR and Fitbit Surge do not consistently and accurately record
users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as
violations of various states' false advertising and unfair
competition statutes based on the Company's sale and marketing of
the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint that combines the plaintiffs from the two
previously filed complaints. On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. Attached as
an exhibit was a "study" commissioned by the plaintiffs and
performed by two researchers at California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona, which allegedly found that the Fitbit devices
incorrectly measured heart rate by an average of 20 beats per
minute during moderate to high exercise. The Company has not yet
answered. On November 10, 2016, the parties had a hearing on
whether the issue of arbitrability should be decided by the
arbitrator.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: San Mateo Action Transferred to San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that a class action in San
Mateo, California, has been transferred to the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.

On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers, its board members, the
underwriters for the IPO, and a number of its investors (the "San
Mateo Action"). On May 23, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's
request to voluntarily dismiss the investor defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that the IPO registration statement contained
material misstatements about the Company's products. Plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased Fitbit common
stock in and/or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiff seeks class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On May 17, 2016, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco alleging
claims similar to those at issue in the San Mateo Action and the
Federal Securities Class Action (the "San Francisco Action"). The
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act based on
alleged material misstatements in the registration statements for
the IPO and November 2015 follow-on public offering and names as
defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, the
underwriters for the Company's public offerings, and two of the
Company's investors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
persons who acquired Fitbit common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the IPO and follow-on public offering.

The Company removed both the San Mateo Action and the San
Francisco Action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On July 27, 2016, the District Court remanded the actions back to
state court. Defendants have not yet answered.

On September 19, 2016, the San Mateo Action was transferred to the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in these
actions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of
this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result
from this matter.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Overstates CnF Value, FourWorld Report Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FourWorld Capital Management, LLC, has completed an independent
analysis of the principal product of Flotek Industries Inc. (NYSE:
FTK) ("Flotek"), challenging the efficacy and value of the
fracking additive known as CnF.

Houston-based Flotek, a supplier of specialty chemicals to the oil
and gas industry, markets CnF as a high-potency fracking additive
that it claims enhances the extraction of oil and natural gas from
horizontal wells by 30% to 70% relative to similar additives.
Touted as its "crown jewel," CnF has long been Flotek's primary
driver of revenue and profitability, which is sold to operators of
hydraulic fracturing oil and gas wells across the United States.
Flotek sells CnF at a premium that is multiples of the price of
widely available generic surfactants.

New York-based FourWorld Capital is an SEC-registered investment
advisor focusing on event-based investments prompted by specific
tax, legal or regulatory drivers.  The firm was founded by John
Addis, formerly head of Americas Equity Finance at Bank of America
Merrill Lynch.

FourWorld's analysis reveals that Flotek overstates the impact of
CnF on well productivity.  In addition, an analysis using publicly
available data on oil and gas wells shows the vast majority of
major oil and gas producers have discontinued their use of CnF
products in well completions in recent years.

"Through a painstaking analysis of CnF performance -- using
publicly available data on shale production from the leading
industry data sources -- we found that CnF has no measurable
impact on oil production in fracked wells," Mr. Addis stated.

Among its findings on CnF, FourWorld's investigation has
determined that:

   -- Flotek may not have provided critical information to an
independent consulting firm, MHA Petroleum Consultants,
commissioned by a special committee of the Flotek Board of
Directors to evaluate the product earlier this year.  FourWorld
contends that the resulting study, published by Flotek this past
January, was based on incomplete data and used an evaluation
technique that failed to control for key variables in the oil
extraction process.

   -- Employing evaluation techniques that properly control for
the key variables in the oil production process (e.g., location,
well length, water and sand volume), the estimated impact of CnF
on oil production is indistinguishable from zero.  The analysis
covered the same focus areas indicated in DJ Basin report from MHA
commissioned by Flotek.

   -- Studies of CnF use in fracking completions from a nationwide
database of over 117,000 well sites from over 1,000 oil and gas
operators across 25 states, shows nearly 85% of the end users of
CnF products since November 2012 are no longer using Flotek's CnF
product in their reported well completions.  Among these are major
operators like Anadarko Petroleum, Devon Energy, Aera Energy and
ConocoPhilips, who all rank in the top ten operators by overall
well count in the database during the study period.

   -- In recent earnings presentations, Flotek highlights the
"resilience" of CnF sales volumes stemming from its broadening
base of CnF customers.  FourWorld's analysis shows the growing
concentration of CnF use by just three operators -- due to changes
in well design -- has masked the true level of CnF end user
attrition, and demonstrates that consumption by new operators has
been minimal.

   -- Flotek's financial condition is heavily dependent on CnF.
FourWorld believes anyone reviewing the Company should carefully
consider the impact on Flotek's income statement if CnF sales were
materially reduced from either a reduction in pricing more in line
with competitor products or a decline in volumes from existing
customers.

As of the publication date of the report, FourWorld, and FourWorld
managed accounts, have a direct or indirect short position in
Flotek stock, and stand to realize significant gains in the event
the price of Flotek stock declines.  The consulting firms hired by
FourWorld, and referenced in the report, are receiving a fee based
on the performance of FourWorld's positions in Flotek stock, and,
independent of FourWorld, may have a direct or indirect short
position in Flotek stock.

Incomplete list of CnF trade names provided by Flotek helped
overstate product's efficacy

FourWorld believes that the list of trade names provided by Flotek
to MHA, a Denver based consulting firm hired by a special
committee of the Flotek Board of Directors, was incomplete and
materially affected the results of their study in Denver-Julesburg
Basin of Colorado.  MHA relied on these trade names in order to
determine which wells had Flotek's CnF products in them.  The
trade names present in the focus areas of the published study
include at least two CnF products not present on the list provided
by Flotek, which accounted for an estimated 22% of CnF wells in
the focus areas reported to show materially improved results from
CnF.  Without these additional trade names, wells that used CnF
would be misclassified as wells not using the product.

Using its own comprehensive data set of wells in the same focus
areas of the DJ Basin, FourWorld shows the impact of mislabeling
these wells in a simple control study, like the one conducted by
MHA, is material.  The largest number of mislabeled wells in the
data-set belonged to Noble Energy.  The MHA study was commissioned
by the Special Technical Committee, a committee formed from
Flotek's own Board of Directors, which was tasked with handling an
SEC inquiry into Flotek marketing practices and evaluating the
efficacy of CnF.  Among the members of the Flotek Board is Ted D.
Brown, senior vice president of Noble's Northern Region, including
operations in the DJ Basin, until January 31, 2015.

FourWorld's own comparative study of 604 wells in the DJ basin
shows no CnF benefit

FourWorld, working closely with two Houston-based energy and
performance measurement consultants, RK Trading LLC and Sylvania
LLC, tested CnF extensively using various methods.

The group performed analyses to evaluate the performance of wells
located in the eastern Colorado section of the DJ Basin, the area
reported in the study published by Flotek to show the highest
levels of oil production outperformance from wells labeled as
using a CnF product compared to wells determined not to contain a
CnF product by MHA.

These analyses demonstrate that simply controlling for the key
variables known to affect oil production, such as well length,
location, water volume, sand use and operator, reveals that the
estimated effect of CnF on oil production is indistinguishable
from zero.  In simpler terms, where and how you frack the well
matters.

RK and Sylvania used robust regressions and Generalized Additive
Models to demonstrate that production in the DJ Basin wells varies
systematically with these key variables.  The analysis indicates
that all of the outperformance of wells using a CnF product was
attributable to variable affecting oil production, and not the
presence of CnF.  RK and Sylvania indicate similar conclusions
have been obtained for a large sample of wells completed in the
Permian Basin, one of the most prolific oil and gas producing
regions in the country.

An analysis of a publicly available database shows 85% attrition
of CnF end users

Using FracFocus, the industry standard source for finding chemical
data on oil and gas wells, FourWorld conducted a study of over
117,000 well sites from over 1,000 operators in 25 states to
evaluate the use of CnF in fracking completions.  The results of
FourWorld's analyses show that of the 334 operators who have used
CnF in any well completion over the last four years, nearly 85% of
them no longer report using a CnF product in well completions.
Among them are major operators like Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
(APC), EOG Resources Inc. (EOG), Devon Energy Corp. (DVN), Aera
Energy LLC and ConocoPhilips (COP). FourWorld analysis shows 160
of 183 operators are no longer using CnF products in well
completions when the analysis is limited to horizontal fracked
wells only.

Flotek highlights new CnF customers while avoiding the turnover
among existing users: "[T]he base of CnF users broadened
meaningfully in the third quarter" Flotek CFO John Chisholm said
in a 3rd Quarter 2016 earnings call.  Analysis of Flotek's own
presentation materials from an industry conference in November
2016 shows evidence of customer turnover of nearly 70% since the
start of 2014, while the operator study described above shows a
similar yet slightly higher attrition rate of 85% of CnF end
users.  Furthermore, using FracFocus data, FourWorld has
identified just 19 "new" CnF end users in 2016, who have completed
a combined total of 50 wells with CnF out of the 285 total well
completed in the period.

FourWorld believes Flotek's new customers have been almost
exclusively smaller operators with minimal revenue potential.
Water usage studies conducted by FourWorld show that the top three
users of CnF have propped up CnF sales volumes despite a massively
fall in CnF well completion counts for operators outside the top
three, which highlight a worsening customer concentration problem
and calls into question Flotek's claims of a broadening customer
base and accelerated adoption of CnF chemistries.

The collaboration of FourWorld, RK Trading and Sylvania produced
multiple studies to measure the efficacy on CnF under strict
variable controls.  This powerful combination brought together
expertise in data collection, database management, and statistical
analysis of well chemistry and completion design.

Dr. Jefferis, partner at RK Trading and consulting statistician,
added, "The analysis is very cut and dried.  We evaluated the DJ
Basin data using several different approaches, and obtained the
same answer in every case. Once you recognize that a well
completed by someone who has already drilled several hundred wells
in a given location is bound to behave differently than a well
completed by party who has much less local experience, and
acknowledge the challenge of pushing oil through an 8,000-ft.
wellbore, the results more or less fall into your lap."

FourWorld's full thesis, along with a white paper authored by RK
Trading and Sylvania discussing their regression analysis and
generalized additive model study, are available at
www.fourworldcapital.com.

                     About FourWorld Capital

FourWorld Capital Management LLC --
http://www.fourworldcapital.com-- is an SEC registered investment
adviser based in New York.  FourWorld focuses on event-driven
investing, with an emphasis on tax, legal and regulatory
catalysts.

Following publication of this report, FourWorld intends to
continue transacting in the securities covered herein. The firm
may be long, short, or neutral at any time hereafter regardless of
its initial recommendation.

Please see the full Disclaimer appearing in the report available
on the FourWorld website at:

           http://fourworldcapital.com/research-flotek

FourWorld Capital Management, LLC is a member of the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, CRD number 284138.


FOREVER 21: Faces "Huang" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LI HUANG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FOREVER 21, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06712-
ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff have
received from Defendant(s) unsolicited and unconsented-to
commercial text messages to their mobile phones from FOREVER 21,
INC. in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Forever 21, Inc. operates as a fashion retailer of women's, men's,
and kid's clothing and accessories internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Merger Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, regarding the dismissal of
their class action lawsuit related to the Company's merger with
Baltic Trading Limited.

On April 7, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Baltic Trading under which the Company acquired
Baltic Trading in a stock-for-stock transaction.

In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.  On
May 26, 2015, the six actions were consolidated under the caption
In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No.
651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed
on June 10, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated
Complaint is purported to be brought by and on behalf of Baltic
Trading's shareholders and alleges that the then-proposed July
2015 merger did not fairly compensate Baltic Trading's
shareholders and undervalued Baltic Trading.  The Consolidated
Complaint names as defendants the Company, Baltic Trading, the
individual members of Baltic Trading's board, and the Company's
merger subsidiary.

The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of
good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty,
including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii)
aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages.

On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the
merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015.  The motion
was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015.  The
motion to enjoin the vote was denied on July 15, 2015 (the
"Preliminary Injunction Denial").  Plaintiffs sought an emergency
injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State
Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July
16, 2015.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and the
vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17,
2015.  Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew that appeal.

On June 30, 2015, Defendants had moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Plaintiffs subsequently served an
Amended Consolidated Complaint, and Defendants directed their
motion to dismiss to that amended complaint.  The motion to
dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was
dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016 (the "Dismissal
Decision").

On September 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
which recites their appeal of the Dismissal Decision, "including
. . . and as referenced in" the Dismissal Order, the Preliminary
Injunction Denial.

Genco is a Marshall Islands company that transports iron ore,
coal, grain, steel products and other drybulk cargoes along
worldwide shipping routes through the ownership and operation of
drybulk carrier vessels.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Wagner" Suit Over Product Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-10961
(N.D. Ill., November 30, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's
unfair and deceptive business practices by misrepresenting the
nature and quality of GNC's L-Glutamine dietary supplements Pro
Performance(R) L-Glutamine Powder 5000, Pro Performance(R) L-
Glutamine 1500, Pro Performance(R) RapidDrive Glutamine 2500 Power
Chew, and Pro Performance(R) RapidDrive Glutamine 5000 on the
Products' labels.

General Nutrition Corporation operates a health and fitness
company that sells various weight loss, bodybuilding, nutritional
supplements, and vitamins, including glutamine dietary
supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
      Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
      THE BRUNO FIRM
      900 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 4E
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Telephone: (773) 969-6160
      E-mail: kbruno@brunolawus.com
              msilverman@brunolawus.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      1644 Bracken Road
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


GEO CORRECTIONS: Faces "Weldon" Suit in California Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEO Corrections and
Detention, LLC.  The case is captioned TAMETRA WELDON, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. GEO
CORRECTIONS AND DETENTION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-
102833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2016).

GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC was incorporated in 2012 and is
based in Boca Raton, Florida. GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of GEO Corrections Holdings Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (888) 500 8469


GOPRO INC: Jan. 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Camia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action is set for hearing in
January 2017.

The Company said, "Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of
four purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of our current and former
officers. Similar complaints were filed on January 21, 2016,
February 4, 2016 and February 19, 2016."

"Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased our publicly traded securities between
July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the first three complaints
and between November 26, 2014 and January 13, 2016 for the last
filed complaint. Each complaint purports to allege that defendants
made false and misleading statements about our business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and each seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, fees and costs.

"On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three
actions (Camia Investments Class Action); the court allowed the
fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November 26,
2014 through July 20, 2015 (Majesty Palms Class Action) and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action. The
lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file an
amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms
Class Action on July 28, 2016.

"On September 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Camia Investment Class Action. That motion is currently set for
hearing in January 2017."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories.


GOPRO INC: Bid to Dismiss San Mateo Court Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants' demurrer (motion
to dismiss) to an amended complaint was scheduled to be heard on
November 22, 2016.

The Company said, "On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain
of our current and former directors and executive officers and
underwriters of our IPO. The complaint purports to bring suit on
behalf of shareholders who purchased our stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with our IPO and purports to allege claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the Securities Act). The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on
June 7, 2016. Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to
the consolidated action. On July 13, 2016, the Court sustained the
demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend and ordered
plaintiff to file any amended complaint by October 7, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, again
alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act against the same group of defendants. The
defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the amended
complaint on October 28, 2016, which was scheduled to be heard on
November 22, 2016.

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories.


GRUMA CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Pineda, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Gruma Corporation, Gruma Azteca, Inc., Mission Foods
Corporation, Mission Mexican Foods, Inc., and Does 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC642396 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 30, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for unpaid
overtime wages for overtime hours worked; failure to provide
adequate meal and rest periods or pay meal and rest period premium
wages; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment and for failure to pay final paychecks;
injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a food company that produces and
distributes tortillas and corn flour throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Bid for Class Certification Due on March 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2016, in the case
titled Jose Luis Ocampo v. GC Services International, LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing was held and continued to June 20, 2017, at
      9:00 a.m.  Court adopts the parties' proposed dates;

   -- All fact discovery will be noticed in time to be completed
      by June 16, 2017;

   -- Dispositive motions are to be filed by July 18, 2017;

   -- Responses to the dispositive motions, if any, are to be
      filed by August 8, 2017, and replies, if any, are to be
      filed by August 29, 2017;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken
      without prejudice.  Plaintiff has preserved his right;

   -- Plaintiff is given leave to file a motion for class
      certification by March 3, 2017; and

   -- Response to motion for class certification to be filed by
      April 3, 2017 and reply to be filed by April 24, 2017.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YbDKyD0D


GULF COAST: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fulgencio" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Fulgencio o/b/o himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 8:16-
cv-03301-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. operates a collection agency
that provides receivables management services for commercial,
health care, retail, and government.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


HOUSTON, TX: Cops Illegally Detain Arrestees, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that two Texans claim in a federal class action in Houston, that
Houston unconstitutionally detains people it arrests longer than
48 hours without giving them a probable cause hearing.

Lead plaintiff Juan Hernandez, 43, says Houston police arrested
him without a warrant in January after he pushed his family
member. He was charged with misdemeanor assault and booked into a
city jail.

Hernandez claims in a class action filed on December 5, in Houston
federal court that the city doesn't provide probable cause
hearings for its arrestees right away, instead only offering them
the option of immediately getting out of jail by paying bail based
on a set fee schedule.

"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Texas
state law require that anyone arrested without a warrant be
released promptly -- after 48 hours at the longest -- unless a
neutral magistrate has concluded that there was probable cause for
her arrest and continued detention," the Dec. 5 complaint states.
"Houston has a policy and practice of disregarding this simple
obligation."

Houston arrestees don't start the pretrial hearing process until
HPD transfers them to Harris County Jail, where they appear before
a magistrate judge via video feed.

"The arrestees remain in the jail and a hearing officer and an
assistant district attorney participate in the hearing from a room
in the courthouse. The assistant district attorney reads the
alleged facts supporting the charges against the arrestee, and the
hearing officer determines whether there was probable cause for
the arrest," the complaint states.

Hernandez says that after he was booked into a Houston city jail
on Jan. 7, a female staffer told him the Harris County Jail was
full and his transfer there would be delayed. "She told Mr.
Hernandez to 'be patient,'" the complaint states.

More than 49 hours later, Hernandez says, he was taken before a
magistrate, who set his bond at $1,500, court records show. He
pleaded guilty five days later and was sentenced to deferred
adjudication, a form of probation under which he will not be
jailed if he doesn't commit any crimes within one year.

Hernandez's co-plaintiff, James Dossett, claims he was also
arrested on Jan. 7 of this year and was held for 56 hours without
receiving a probable cause hearing. He says the charges against
him were ultimately dropped.

According to the lawsuit, hundreds of Houston detainees were
illegally held without a hearing in July and August because the
county jail didn't have room for them.

Hernandez and Dossett seek damages for alleged violations of the
Fourth and 14th Amendments. They also seek certification of a
class of those arrested without a warrant by Houston police and
held longer than 48 hours without a probable cause hearing in the
last two years.

The two plaintiffs are represented by Rebecca Bernhardt with the
Texas Fair Defense Project in Austin, Charles Gerstein with the
Civil Rights Corps in Washington, D.C., and Patrick King with
Kirkland Ellis in Houston.

Houston's city attorney didn't immediately respond on December 7,
to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Booking an average of 330 people per day, the county jail in
downtown Houston is the biggest in Texas and third biggest in the
United States, according to a federal class action filed in May
that accused Harris County of illegally jailing misdemeanor
arrestees who can't afford bail.

Overcrowding, partly due to a revolving door of the mentally ill,
is a constant problem for the jail. To prevent a crisis, Harris
County shipped 133 inmates to jails in East Texas in April.

Lame duck Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman has told local media
outlets he has little control over the jail population because it
depends on how many people are caught committing crimes and how
quickly low-level offenders can post bond.

A city-county processing center is under construction across the
street from the Harris County Jail.

When the new facility is done, Houston will close its jails and
take all arrestees to the processing center, which should speed up
the bonding-out process for misdemeanor offenders and provide
mentally ill inmates with in-house treatment options.

Hickman is a defendant in the class action over Harris County's
bail system. He has unsuccessfully argued he should be dismissed
from the suit because he is only complying with orders from judges
to jail people who can't afford bail.

Harris County Sheriff-elect Ed Gonzalez, a Democrat, filed an
affidavit in the bail case, in which he announced he plans to
support the plaintiffs.

"Though I respect Sheriff Hickman, I respectfully disagree with
his and his lawyers' position that the sheriff should not even be
a party to this case," the Nov. 22 affidavit states. "I believe
that the current operation of the money bail system, including the
sheriff's active participation in that system, violates the United
States Constitution. I believe that the sheriff should be a party
to the current lawsuit, and I look forward to participating in the
lawsuit in my official capacity once I am sworn into office on
January I, 2017." (Emphasis in original.)

Painfully aware the crowded jail is a festering problem for Harris
County, officials are working on reforms.

The Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, made up
of judges, law enforcement officers and prosecutors, is devising a
data-driven tool to determine which county inmates should be
released on bond before their cases are disposed. The council is
partnering with Luminosity Inc., a St. Petersburg, Fla., criminal-
justice consulting firm.

The system, which is expected to go live in March 2017, will
assess the risk of an arrestee not showing up to court, committing
new crimes and committing violent crimes.

The case is captioned, JUAN HERNANDEZ and JAMES DOSSETT, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, Defendant (S.D. Tex.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Rebecca Bernhardt, Esq.
          Attorney-in-Charge
          Susanne Pringle, Esq.
          Texas Fair Defense Project
          314 E Highland Mall Blvd, Suite 108
          Austin, Texas 78752
          Tel: (512) 637-5220
          E-mail: rbernhardt@fairdefense.org
                  springle@fairdefense.org

          Charles Gerstein, Esq.
          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          Civil Rights Corps
          910 17th Street NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Tel: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorp.org
                  alec@civilrightscorps.org

          Patrick King, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          600 Travis Street, Suite 330
          Houston, Texas 77002
          (713) 835-3600 Telephone
          (713) 835-3601 Facsimile
          E-mail: patrick.king@kirkland.com

          Andrew Genser, Esq.
          Amanda Elbogen, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          601 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          (212) 446-4800 Telephone
          (212) 446-4900 Facsimile
          E-mail: agenser@kirkland.com
                  amanda.elbogen@kirkland.com


IMPERVA INC: Defendants' Operative Answer to Amended Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants have
filed their operative answer to the amended shareholder class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against us and certain of
our current and former officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court
entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the
purported class. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
October 10, 2014. The lawsuit named us and certain of our current
and former officers and purported to bring suit on behalf of those
investors who purchased our publicly traded securities between May
2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleged that defendants
made false and misleading statements about our operations and
business and financial results and purported to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief."

"On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2016, again
naming the same current and former officers, alleging false and
misleading statements about our operations and business and
financial results, and seeking the same relief.

"On February 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On May 16, 2016, the Court granted the motion
in part and denied the motion in part.  On September 7, 2016,
defendants filed their operative answer to the amended complaint."

Imperva, Inc. was incorporated in April 2002 in Delaware. The
Company is headquartered in Redwood Shores, California and has
subsidiaries located throughout the world including Israel, Asia
and Europe. The Company is engaged in the development, marketing,
sales, service and support of cyber-security solutions that
protect business-critical data and applications whether in the
cloud or on premises.


INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Plaintiff Drops Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the class
action litigation related to the merger.

On August 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., a
California corporation, Giant Merger Sub Inc., an Indiana
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Genesys, and, solely
for the purposes of Section 5.16 of the merger agreement,
Greeneden Lux 3 S. aR.L., a societe a responsabilite limitee under
the laws of Luxembourg, Greeneden U.S. Holdings I, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and Greeneden U.S. Holdings II, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to which Merger Sub
will be merged with and into the Company.

On October 6, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Scott Fischer v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:16-cv-02666-TWP-MPB (the "Action") was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division (the "Court") against the Company and its directors,
alleging certain violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company
with the SEC on October 4, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement")
for the proposed merger. In the Action, Plaintiff seeks, among
other things, orders (i) certifying the lawsuit as a class action,
(ii) enjoining the Company from closing the proposed merger until
the Company discloses certain information, and (iii) rescinding
the proposed merger if it is consummated or awarding damages to
the Plaintiff and all other shareholders of the Company.

On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (the "Motion") to
postpone the special meeting of the Company's shareholders
scheduled to be held on November 9, 2016, until the Company
discloses certain information regarding the proposed merger.

On October 28, 2016, the Company and its directors filed their
brief in opposition to the Motion. The Court set a hearing on the
Motion for November 4, 2016.

On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
Action with prejudice.

Also on November 1, 2016, the Court acknowledged Plaintiff's
dismissal of the Action with prejudice, denied the Motion as moot,
and vacated the hearing set for November 4, 2016.

Interactive is a global provider of software and cloud services
for customer engagement, communication and collaboration.


INVENSENSE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the court has not yet
filed an order ruling on the Class Action Defendants' motion
seeking dismissal of the amended complaint.

In January and March 2015, purported shareholders filed five
substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two
of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action
Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v.
InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on
January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on
January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and
Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v.
InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11,
2015).

On April 23, 2015, three of those cases were consolidated into a
single proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California and captioned In re
InvenSense, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD
(the "Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as
lead plaintiff; the other two cases (Lendales and Saratoga
Advantage Trust) were voluntarily dismissed in March and June
2015, respectively.

On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding our business results between July
29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along
with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the case. A ruling granting the motion in
part and denying it in part, and giving the lead plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint, issued on March 28, 2016.

The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2016.
On May 5, 2016, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion seeking
dismissal of the amended complaint. The motion was argued and
submitted on June 29, 2016; the court has not yet filed an order
ruling on the motion.

In light of the unresolved legal issues, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be estimated. At this stage, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and, accordingly,
cannot estimate the potential financial impact on the Company's
business, operating results, cash flows or financial position.

InvenSense, Inc. designs, develops, markets and sells sensor
systems on a chip, including accelerometers, gyroscopes and
microphones for the mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming,
industrial, and automotive market segments.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Appeals Court Decision Pending
---------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Court of Appeals has heard oral arguments on the appeal of a class
action lawsuit but has not yet rendered a decision.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, its former
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the
timing and completion of the clinical study of the Company's
Neuro-Spinal Scaffold(TM) implant. The plaintiff sought class
certification for purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and
unspecified damages.

On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with
prejudice.

On May 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this
decision. Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the
Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on April 6, 2016 but has not
yet rendered a decision.

InVivo is a research and clinical-stage biomaterials and
biotechnology company with a focus on treatment of spinal cord
injuries.


ITC HOLDINGS: Class Suits Over Fortis Merger Pending
----------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend lawsuits associated with the Merger with
Fortis, Inc.

Following the announcement of the Merger with Fortis Inc., four
putative state class action lawsuits were filed by purported
shareholders of ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC
Holdings shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra
v. Albert Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et
al., Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph
L. Welch, et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court
of the State of Michigan.

The complaints name as defendants a combination of ITC Holdings
and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors,
Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub. The complaints generally allege,
among other things, that (1) ITC Holdings' directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement,
(including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties
of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings'
directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder
value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal
protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a
combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of
relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from
completing the Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory
damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 22, 2016.

On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that
the related cases be consolidated under the caption In re ITC
Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

On April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to add
derivative claims on behalf of ITC Holdings.

On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by
the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et
al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus
FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same
types of relief as in the state court cases.

On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The
amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as
defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the
Merger Agreement, was allegedly materially misleading and
allegedly omitted material facts that were necessary to render it
non-misleading.

Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold
Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members
of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and
Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the
same type of relief as Guerra.

On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed
by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L.
Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint
names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations
as the other federal complaints.

On June 8, 2016, the state court denied a motion for summary
disposition filed by ITC Holdings and the individual members of
the ITC Holdings board of directors. ITC Holdings voluntarily made
supplemental disclosures related to the Merger in response to
certain allegations, which are set forth in a Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on June 13, 2016. Nothing in those supplemental
disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth therein.

On July 6, 2016, the federal actions were voluntarily dismissed by
the federal plaintiffs. The federal plaintiffs reserved the right
to make certain other claims, and ITC Holdings and the individual
members of the ITC Holdings board of directors reserved the right
to oppose any such claim.

On July 8, 2016, the plaintiffs in Poland filed a motion for class
certification. On July 13, 2016, ITC Holdings and the individual
members of the ITC Holdings board of directors filed their
respective answers to the amended complaint in Poland. On July 19,
2016, the Poland state court issued a scheduling order, which,
among other things, requires the parties to complete discovery by
March 10, 2017, and sets a trial date for June 5, 2017. On July
25, 2016, the Poland state court issued an order allowing a new
plaintiff, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, to
intervene in the Poland case.

"We believe the remaining lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it. Additional lawsuits arising out of
or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in
the future," the Company said.

ITC Holdings operates high-voltage systems in Michigan's Lower
Peninsula and portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri,
Kansas and Oklahoma that transmit electricity from generating
stations to local distribution facilities connected to the
Company's systems.


JANI-KING INT'L: Faces "Mujo" Suit Under Conn. Minimum Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON MUJO and INDRIT MUHARREMI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL,
INC., JANI-KING INC., and JANI-KING OF HARTFORD, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01990 (D. Conn., December 5, 2016), alleges that
Jani-King has taken and continues to take unlawful deductions from
the compensation paid to Plaintiffs in violation of section 31-71
e of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

Jani-King is in the business of providing commercial cleaning
services to customers, which include restaurants, office
buildings, retail establishments, hotels, government buildings,
health care facilities, stadiums, and schools and universities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
     THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
     221 Main Street, Suite 501
     Hartford, CT 06106
     Phone: (860) 522-8888
     Fax: (860) 218-9555
     E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


JO-ANN STORES: Faces "West" Suit in New York for Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY WEST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JO-ANN STORES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09386-LTS (S.D.N.Y., December 5,
2016), alleges that Defendant is denying blind individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and
services Jo-Ann provides to their non-disabled customers through
http://www.joann.com.

Joann.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, careers, and other programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


JONES WOLF: Faces "Winters" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jones, Wolf & Kapasi
LLC. The case is styled JEFFREY A. WINTERS and COLLECTION
SOLUTIONS, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOSEPH K. JONES,
ESQ.; BENJAMIN J. WOLF, ESQ.; JONES, WOLF & KAPASI LLC; LAURA S.
MANN, LLC.; ARI H. MARCUS, ESQ.; YITZCHAK ZELMAN, ESQ.; and MARCUS
& ZELMAN, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09020-JMV-JBC
(D.N.J., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John
Michael Vazquez.

Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC is a law firm with offices in New York
and New Jersey providing legal services in the areas of estate
planning, business transactional law, consumer and commercial
litigation, consumer protection law and class actions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Hoffman, Esq.
          15a New England Avenue
          Po Box 554
          Summit, NJ 07901
          Telephone: (908) 608 0333
          E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com


LODGEWORKS PARTNERS: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lodgeworks Partners,
L.P.  The case is captioned Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lodgeworks
Partners, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 5, 2016).

LodgeWorks Partners, L.P., is a privately held hotel development
and management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


KELLOGG COMPANY: "George" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Julie George, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri v. Kellogg
Company, Case No. 1622-CC10943, was removed from St. Louis City
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:16-cv-01887 to the proceeding.

Kellogg Company operates a food manufacturing company
headquartered in Battle Creek, Michigan.

Julie George is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Erwin O. Switzer, III
      GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC
      10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 241-9090
      Facsimile: (314) 241-8624
      E-mail: eos@greensfelder.com

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment Motion in "Fosbre" Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that no hearing date
for the Defendants' motion for summary judgment has been set.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S.
District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional
portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class
period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was
reassigned to a new judge.

On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to
dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013,
the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss.

On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015.

On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for
summary judgment on March 11, 2016.

Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on
April 8, 2016. No hearing date for the summary judgment has been
set.

Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is
currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of
this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The
Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands owns and operates casino properties.


LEE COUNTY, AL: Sheriff's Office Sued Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Grier, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Lee County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 3:16-cv-00931-SRW (M.D.
Ala., December 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lee County Sheriff's Office is committed to protect the lives,
property and rights of all people, to maintain order and to
enforce the laws of the State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Glenn Montgomery, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN ALABAMA, PLLC
      63 South Royal Street, Suite 710
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Telephone: (251) 800-6030
      Facsimile: (251) 800-6061
      E-mail: pmontgomery@forthepeople.com


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: "Fernandez" Class Action Appeal Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Martin Fernandez's
appeal of the dismissal of his class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a company employee.

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant,
TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and other
claims.

On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the
Plaintiff against the Company. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of this dismissal on November 17, 2015, to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the appeal remains pending.
Plaintiff filed his appellate brief on May 6, 2016. Leidos filed
its response on July 6, 2016 and Plaintiff filed his reply on
August 19, 2016.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos"), a holding company whose direct
100%-owned subsidiaries are Leidos, Inc. and Leidos Innovations
Corporation ("Leidos Innovations"), is a global science and
technology solutions company that provides technology and
engineering solutions in the defense, intelligence, homeland
security, civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers
include agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the
intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
("DHS"), the Department of Health and Human Services, other U.S.
Government civil agencies and state and local government agencies.
Leidos' international customers include foreign governments and
their agencies, primarily located in the United Kingdom, the
Middle East and Australia.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Action Remanded to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a securities class
action litigation has been remanded to the District Court for
further proceedings on plaintiffs' claim.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce
management system for certain agencies of the City of New York
("CityTime") and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007, through
September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual
defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the
Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in
connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The
plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members
allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming
in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. In
particular, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs should be
permitted to pursue omissions claims against the Company with
respect to the annual report the Company filed on Form 10-K on
March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of all other
claims, including all the claims against the individual
defendants.

The Company petitioned the Second Circuit on April 12, 2016 to
rehear the appeal, which was denied on August 2, 2016. The case is
now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on
plaintiffs' claim.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos"), a holding company whose direct
100%-owned subsidiaries are Leidos, Inc. and Leidos Innovations
Corporation ("Leidos Innovations"), is a global science and
technology solutions company that provides technology and
engineering solutions in the defense, intelligence, homeland
security, civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers
include agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the
intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
("DHS"), the Department of Health and Human Services, other U.S.
Government civil agencies and state and local government agencies.
Leidos' international customers include foreign governments and
their agencies, primarily located in the United Kingdom, the
Middle East and Australia.


MARKET STREET: Faces "Gregori" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Gregori and Willialn Gouge, on behalf of themselves and a1l
others similarly situated v. Market Street Management, LLC d/b/a
Family Meal (Frederick), Case No. 1:16-cv-03853-JFM (Md. Cir. Ct.,
November 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Market Street Management, LLC owns and operates a restaurant
located at 882 N East St, Frederick, MD 21701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      Roy Lyford-Pike, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zagirm.com
              rlyfordpike@zagfrm.com


MARS PETCARE: Sued Over Price-Fixing of Prescription Pet Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
pet owners claim in a federal antitrust class action in San
Francisco, that Mars Petcare, Nestle Purina, Hill's Pet Nutrition,
Petsmart and others colluded to sell prescription pet food at
above-market prices -- and the food contains nothing that isn't
also found in nonprescription products.

The case is captioned, TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO,
NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN and CYNTHIA WELTON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARS
PETCARE US, INC.; NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY; HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC.; PETSMART, INC.; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT NTERNATIONAL,
INC. D/B/A BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL; BLUEPEARL VET, LLC, Defendants.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-7001 (N.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
          Matthew D. Davis, Esq.
          Spencer J. Pahlke, Esq.
          WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
          650 California Street, 26th Fl
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2615
          Telephone: (415) 981-7210
          Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
          E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
                  mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com
                  spahlke@walkuplawoffice.com

               - and -

          Daniel Shulman, Esq.
          Julia Dayton Klein, Esq.
          GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY, & BENNETT, P.A.
          80 South Eight Street, Suite 500
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Telephone: (612) 632-3335
          Facsimile: (612) 632-4335
          E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
                  julia.daytonklein@gpmlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
          Wade H. Tomlinson III, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
          POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
          3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
          Atlanta, Georgia 30326
          Telephone: (404) 523-7706
          Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
          E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com
                  triptomlinson@pmkm.com
                  kimjohnson@pmkm.com

               - and -

          Lynwood P. Evans, Esq.
          Edward J. Coyne III, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq.
          WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
          127 Racine Drive
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 794-4800
          Facsimile: (910) 794-4877
          E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com
                  ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com
                  jw@wardandsmith.com


MAXIMUS INC: Norton Seeks Certification of Supervisors Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled YVETTE NORTON, JEANNETTE
RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN, KELLY BARKER, JOSEPH BELL, BRAD EPPERLY,
STEPHANIE JONES, KATHERINE KELLEY KNOWLES, NANCY RICHARDS, and
MARK ZUMWALT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MAXIMUS INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-00030-WBS (D. Idaho),
move the Court for an order certifying the class, approving the
notice to be sent to class members and approving the proposed
settlement.

The case is brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated putative collective action members
employed by Maximus as Supervisors.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u4M4T9dZ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard A. Belodoff, Esq.
          BELODOFF LAW OFFICE PLLC
          1004 West Fort Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 331-3378
          Facsimile: (208) 947-0014
          E-mail: hbelodoff@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah M. Hudson, Esq.
          FISHER RAINEY HUDSON
          950 West Bannock Street, Suite 630
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 345-7000
          Facsimile: (208) 514-1900
          E-mail: jeremiah@frhtriallawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          B. Newal Squyres, Esq.
          Douglas L. Abbott, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Jensen, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          800 W. Main Street, Suite 1750
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 342-5000
          Facsimile: (208) 343-8869
          E-mail: Nsquyres@hollandhart.com
                  dabbott@hollandhart.com
                  jmjensen@hollandhart.com


MDL 1869: Class Cert. Ruling in Fuel Surcharge Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In
re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1869, the District Court has not yet issued an order whether to
certify a class.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were
consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District
Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class
action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other
Class I railroads in April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by
the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads
appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals.

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class, but no order has been issued.

The Company continues to believe that these claims are without
merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.
The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.


MISSISSIPPI LIMESTONE: Miss. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elsie Williams, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Mississippi Limestone Corporation and Clifton Davis, Case No.
4:16-cv-238-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., November 30, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mississippi Limestone Corporation operates a company that provides
asphalt and paving materials to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
      4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
      Jackson, MS 39211
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com

MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Transfer of Case to D. Mass. Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
magistrate judge has recommended the transfer of a class action
lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The
complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from selling
generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude
competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation
of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Hearings on the
motions were held before a U.S. magistrate in April 2016 and
February 2016, respectively.

On September 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed a Report and
Recommendation to the District Court to deny the motions to
dismiss and to transfer. These motions are subject to briefing and
review by the District Court.

While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the
Company believes this suit is without merit, and it intends to
vigorously defend itself in this litigation.

Momenta is a biotechnology company focused on developing generic
versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for
autoimmune diseases.


NEW RELEASE: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Release DVD,
LLC. The case is titled APRIL NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. NEW RELEASE
DVD, LLC, doing business as NEW RELEASE DVD; NEW RELEASE DVD; and
NEW RELEASE DVD II, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-06296-LS
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Lawrence F.
Stengel.

New Release is a video rentals & sales store in Glenmoore,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


OCEAN SHORE: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Ocean Shore Holding Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants and
plaintiffs have agreed to the terms of a settlement of a class
action lawsuit.

On July 12, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with OceanFirst Financial Corp., the parent company of
OceanFirst Bank, and Masters Merger Sub Corp., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of OceanFirst.

On July 22, 2016, Robert Strougo, a purported Ocean Shore
stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court for the State of New Jersey, Cape May County, against Ocean
Shore, the members of the Ocean Shore board and OceanFirst on
behalf of all Ocean Shore public stockholders. The lawsuit
generally alleges that the members of the Ocean Shore board
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement
because the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement with
OceanFirst are procedurally flawed and financially inadequate,
certain terms in the merger agreement are preclusive and unfair,
and certain members of the Ocean Shore board are conflicted.
Plaintiff further alleges that OceanFirst aided and abetted such
breaches. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the merger, as well as
unspecified money damages, costs and attorney's fees and expenses.

On September 7, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
bringing disclosure claims alleging that OceanFirst's registration
statement on Form S-4 omitted certain material information.
Although the defendants believe that they have meritorious
defenses to the plaintiff's claims, defendants and plaintiffs
agreed to the terms of a settlement on October 10, 2016 whereby
additional disclosures were made in the Registration Statement.
The terms of the settlement are subject to, among other things,
further documentation and Court approval.

Ocean Shore Holding Co. is the holding company for Ocean City Home
Bank.  The Company's assets consist of its investment in Ocean
City Home Bank and its liquid investments. The Company is
primarily engaged in the business of directing, planning, and
coordinating the business activities of the Bank.


OHIO: Palladeno Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TED PALLADENO, et al. v.
GARY C. MOHR, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01126-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
moves the Court for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ted Palladeno, et al., state that they filed a complaint
concurrently with the Motion, which sufficiently defines the class
and the class claims.  They assert that they are permitted to
bring multiple unrelated claims since the claims are asserted
against the same group of Defendants.  They have also concurrently
filed a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for
preliminary injunctions, and a motion to seal filings.

Defendant Gary C. Mohr is the director of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation & Correction.

The Plaintiffs are incarcerated at the Toledo Correctional
Institution, located at 2001 East Central Avenue, in Toledo, Ohio.
They appear in this case pro se.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RmQ9cGBK


PALM RESTAURANT: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palm Restaurant Inc.
The case is captioned Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Palm Restaurant Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09381 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016).

Palm is an American fine-dining steakhouse that opened in 1926.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Hunt et al. Allege Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTWOIN HUNT, JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, NORMAN GREEN, JAMES LEWIS and
KEVIN JAMES, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
laborers, Plaintiffs, v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP,
THE SEGERDAHL CORP., MERCURY PLASTICS, INC., MPS CHICAGO, INC.
d/b/a JET LITHO, THE PENRAY COMPANIES, INC., ADVERTISING
RESOURCES, INC. d/b/a ARI PACKAGING, LAWRENCE FOODS, INC. and
BLOMMER CHOCOLATE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11086
(N.D. Ill., December 6, 2016), arises under the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, and challenges Defendants' alleged discrimination against
African-American laborers.

MVP, THE SEGERDAHL CORP. is a temporary staffing agency that
assigns temporary laborers in its labor pool to its third party
client companies for a fee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
     Alvar Ayala, Esq.
     WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 795-9121

        - and -

     Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
     Shaylyn Cochran, Esq.
     Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C.
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600


PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Rikos" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dino Rikos, Tracey Burns, and Leo
Jarzembrowski, On Behalf of Themselves, All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, the Plaintiffs, v. The Procter &
Gamble Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-mc-00103, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
Ohio (Cincinnati). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-mc-00030 to the proceeding.

Procter & Gamble Co., also known as P&G, is an American
multinational consumer goods company headquartered in downtown
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States, founded by William Procter and
James Gamble.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


QS SAN LUIS: Final OK of Accord in "Orduna" Suit Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held before the Hon. Josephine L. Staton in the
lawsuit styled LILI ORDUNA v. Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00593-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), with respect to certain
matters, including:

   * Final Approval Hearing;

   * Plaintiff's Motion for Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and
     Costs, and Class Representative Incentive Payment; and

   * Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
     Settlement.

According to the civil minutes, the Court's tentative ruling is
set forth on the record; arguments were heard, and the matter is
taken under submission.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z0gJUJR9


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Wells" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raymours Furniture
Company, Inc. The case is titled ELIZABETH WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., doing business as RAYMOURS
FURNITURE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06292-CMR (E.D. Pa.,
Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe.

Raymours Furniture retails furniture and mattresses in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


RCH LAWN: Vail Lux, et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HELIEL VAIL LUX, ALVARO GAMALIEL VAIL LUX, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. RCH
LAWN MAINTENANCE LLC, SETH HOROWYTZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
25039-JLK (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants own two other lawn service and maintenance companies
throughout South Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


REALOGY GROUP: Paries in "Strader" Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the parties in the case, Strader, et al. and Hall v.
PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California), are proceeding with discovery.

This is a purported class action brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses
comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January
31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either
(a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of
the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other
lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement
services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation
of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring
business to one another under agreements or arrangements.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees,
costs and disbursements.

On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are
time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On
April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016, and
a third amended complaint on May 12, 2016.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

The Court denied the motion on October 6, 2016, without prejudice
to defendants' ability to move for summary judgment after
discovery. The parties are proceeding with discovery.

The case raises significant claims and rests in part on certain
interpretations of RESPA by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau ("CFPB"), which are the subject of pending industry
litigation in various jurisdictions. As with all class action
litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many
uncertainties.

The Company said, "We believe that we and the joint venture have
complied with RESPA, the regulations promulgated thereunder and
existing regulatory guidance. There can be no assurance, however,
that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently
certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage
award, penalties and other remedies.  Given the early stage of
this case and the novel claims and issues presented, we cannot
estimate a range of reasonably potential losses for this
litigation.  The Company will vigorously defend this action."

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries. Realogy
through its subsidiaries is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


RENT RECOVER: Certification of Class Sought in "Anderson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Anderson asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action styled SHIRLEY ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and a
class v. RENT RECOVER OF BETTER NOI LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10953
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff defines the class as (a) all individuals with
Illinois addresses, (b) who paid a transaction fee to RR (c) at
any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of
this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action.

The Case concerns the legality of a transaction fee the Defendant
charges consumers to pay by credit card.

The Defendant is a collection agency, collecting allegedly
defaulted accounts originally owed to others.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: To Settle Class Suit for $6.4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
has agreed to settle a securities class action litigation for $6.4
million in cash.

As of May 2015, the Company became subject to a securities class
action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635,
which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County,
California against the Company and certain of its directors and
executive officers at the time of the June 2014 follow-on public
offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the
underwriters in the follow-on public offering.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the then-present status of the RT001 topical
clinical program and made false and misleading statements
regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug
candidate, RT001 topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the
time of the follow-on public offering.

The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on
behalf of those who purchased common stock in the follow-on public
offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On October 5, 2015, the Company made a motion for transfer of the
action to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on the
basis that venue was improper in San Mateo County.  Plaintiff's
counsel did not oppose the transfer motion, and the action was
received by Santa Clara Superior Court on November 6, 2015 and
assigned the following case number, 15-CV-287794.

On November 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order deeming the case
complex and staying all discovery and motions pending further
order.

Before proceeding with further Court action, including the filing
of its motions to dismiss under California rules, the Company
agreed with Plaintiff to conduct a mediation. The parties did not
reach agreement during the mediation. However, following the
mediation, the parties continued discussions and, on October 31,
2016, executed a stipulation of settlement. Under this
stipulation, in exchange for a release of all claims by the
plaintiff class, the Company has agreed to settle the litigation
for $6.4 million in cash, of which the Company expects $5.9
million to be covered by its insurance policies. The stipulation
maintains that the defendants, including the Company, deny all
wrongdoing and liability related to the litigation. Plaintiff's
counsel advised the Court that they intended to file a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement by November 14, 2016. The
stipulation and proposed settlement remain subject to approval by
the Court and certain other conditions.

The Company said, "This litigation, including the proposed
settlement, remains subject to uncertainty, and the actual defense
and disposition costs may depend upon many unknown factors.
Therefore, there can be no assurance that this litigation will not
have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."

The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on
the development, manufacturing and commercialization of novel
botulinum toxin products for multiple aesthetic and therapeutic
indications, for dermatology, neurology and other specialties.


ROTOBRUSH INT'L: Transferred "Seramur" Class Suit to N.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Dennis R. Seramur d/b/a Dennis
& Sons Builders, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons v. Rotobrush International LLC, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01087-O, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-277-JVB-PRC to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Rotobrush sent unsolicited facsimile
messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Headquartered in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, Rotobrush International
LLC is a supplier of residential and commercial cleaning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ross M. Good, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwnaca@andersonwanca.com
              rgood@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Scott S. Morrisson, Esq.
      Blake P. Holler, Esq.
      KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
      12800 N Meridian St Ste 300
      Carmel, IN 46032
      Telephone: (317) 636-4341
      Facsimile: (317) 636-1507
      E-mail: smorrisson@kdlegal.com
              bholler@kdlegal.com


SHIPSTON ALUMINUM: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Zellars" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Zellars and Justin Stewart, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Shipston Aluminum
Technologies, Inc. f/k/a CTC Casting Technologies, Inc. and Busche
Aluminum Technologies, Case No. 1:16-cv-03251-SEB-DKL (S.D. Ind.,
November 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing aluminum
automotive parts at their facility located in Franklin, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
      3091 E. 98th St., Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
              rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com


SKYE WIRELESS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
--------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Jassim Osman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Skye Wireless, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC642461 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 1, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failing to provide full,
uninterrupted, and timely meal periods as required by California
Labor Code.

Skye Wireless, LLC is a dealer of T-Mobile products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Launa Adolph, Esq.
      Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310)531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


SOS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gutierrez-Bejar" Lawsuit Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JO ANN GUTIERREZ-BEJAR, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-09000 (C.D. Cal.,
December 5, 2016), seeks to recover liquidated damages for alleged
unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
to recover alleged unpaid wages and penalties under the California
Labor Code associated with and/or arising from her -- and that of
the class she seeks to represent -- misclassification as an
"independent contractor".

SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC is engaged in the business of servicing
federal contracts, particularly with respect to language
interpretation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sheila K. Sexton, Esq.
     Costa Kerestenzis, Esq.
     Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq.
     BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
     483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
     Oakland, CA 94607-4051
     Phone: (510) 625-9700
     Fax: (510) 625-8275
     Email: lbradley@beesontayer.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Pension Trust's Suit Removed to S.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following case was removed from the 61st District Court of
Harris County, Texas to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division:

ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION TRUST,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY; STEVEN L. MUELLER; R.
CRAIG OWEN; JOSH C. ANDERS; JOHN D. GASS; CATHERINE A. KEHR; GREG
D. KERLEY; TERRY L. RATHERT; VELLO A. KUUSKRAA; KENNETH R.
MOURTON; ELLIOTT PEW; ALAN H. STEVENS; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; BNP PARIBAS
SECURITIES CORP.; RBS SECURITIES INC.; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.;
MITSUBISHI UFJ SECURITIES (USA), INC.; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA INC.;
SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.; BBVA SECURITIES INC.; CREDIT
AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; CIBC
WORLD MARKETS CORP.; SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC; BB&T CAPITAL
MARKETS, A DIVISION OF BB&T SECURITIES, LLC; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO.
INCORPORATED; COMERICA SECURITIES, INC.; FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES,
INC.; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; HEIKKINEN ENERGY SECURITIES,
LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.;
PNC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.; TUDOR,
PICKERING, HOLT & CO. SECURITIES, INC.; and U.S. BANCORP
INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03569 (December 5,
2016).

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws.

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY -- https://www.swn.com/ -- is an
independent energy company primarily focused on natural gas and
crude oil exploration, development and production within the
United States.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Noelle M. Reed, Esq.
     1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800
     Houston, TX 77002-5026
     Phone: 713-655-5122
     Fax: 713-483-9122

        - and -

     Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     Four Times Square
     New York, NY 10036-6518
     Phone: (212) 735-3000
     Fax: (212) 735-2000

        - and -

     Wallis M. Hampton, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800
     Houston, TX 77002-5026
     Phone: 713-655-5116
     Fax: 713-483-9116


STEALTH SECURITY: Class Certification Sought in G.M. Sign Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
G.M. Sign, Inc., moves the Court to issue an order certifying its
action styled G.M. SIGN, INC., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
STEALTH SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-09249 (N.D.
Ill.), as a class action.

The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

     All persons who were successfully sent a fax advertisement
     from March 2006 through October 2006 that advertised the
     security services of "Security Alert[,]" "specializing in
     all your security needs" for whom Defendant, Stealth
     Security Systems, Inc. cannot prove evidence of prior
     express permission or invitation for the sending of such
     faxes.

G.M. Sign also asks the Court to certify the class, appoint it as
the class representative, and appoint its attorneys as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GxxNF61c

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  Christopher@bockhatchllc.com


STONEMOR PARTNERS: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE KLEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS L.P., LAWRENCE R.
MILLER, SEAN P. MCGRATH, JAMES M. PIPPIS, TIMOTHY K. MCGRATH, and
WILLIAM R. SHANE, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06275-ER (E.D.
Penn., December 2, 2016), alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act for issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
performance.

According to its public filings, STONEMOR PAR1NERS L.P. is the
second-largest provider of funeral and cemetery products and
services in the death care industry in the United States.


SUNCOAST CREDIT: Kruzell Moves to Certify Bankruptcy Filers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce A. Kruzell moves for entry of an order certifying her case
captioned JOYCE A. KRUZELL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:16-cv-
01131-MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla.), as a class action.  The Plaintiff also
asks to be designated as representative of the Class and her
counsel be named class counsel.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court certify this class:

     All individuals who: (1) filed a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13
     bankruptcy in the Middle District of Florida, (2) obtained a
     discharge, and (3) after they received the discharge,
     received communications related to the discharged debt from
     or on behalf of Suncoast Credit Union, on or after March 17,
     2014.

Ms. Kruzell filed the class action against Suncoast asserting
claims for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act, and seeking relief under 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a) for the
Defendant's alleged violation of the discharge injunction, based
on the Defendant's sending collections communications regarding
debts that were discharged in bankruptcy to numerous consumers.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8inJe0Q4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          CENTRONE & SHRADER, LLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          E-mail: gcentrone@centroneshrader.com
                  bshrader@centroneshrader.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas Folger Brink, Esq.
          Lindsay A. Wickham, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
          5201 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 450
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 289-0690
          Facsimile: (813) 289-0692
          E-mail: brink@litchfieldcavo.com
                  wickham@litchfieldcavo.com


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Norfolk Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
TerraVia Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the action, Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Solazyme, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02938 (N.D. Cal.), remains
pending.

In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk
County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed
against the Company, its then CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO,
Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and
the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action").  The complaint asserts claims for
alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the
Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5,
2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public
equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges
that investors were misled by statements made during that period
about the construction progress, development, and production
capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil
owned by the Company's joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos
Renovaveis Ltda.

An amended complaint was filed in December 2015. The Company filed
a Motion to Dismiss the action in February 2016 that was heard in
May 2016. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

TerraVia Holdings, Inc. produces food, nutrition and specialty
ingredients from algae.  In May 2016, the Company changed its name
from "Solazyme, Inc." to "TerraVia Holdings, Inc.", and changed
its Nasdaq ticker listing symbol from SZYM to TVIA.


TUBEMOGUL INC: Shareholders Challenge Adobe Systems Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Tubemogul (online video marketing) too
cheaply through an unfair process to Adobe Systems, for $14 a
share or $540 million, shareholders say in a class action in
Oakland, Calif., Alameda County Court.

The case is captioned, William Thiel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TubeMogul, Inc.,
Brett Wilson, Ajay Chopra, Rusell Fradin, Jack Lazaar, Paul
Levine, Davit Toth, Adobe Systems Incorporated, and Tiger
Acquisition Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 16841232 (Cal.
Super, Alameda County, Dec. 5, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Tel: (213) 446-6652
          Fax: (212) 601-2610
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


TYSON FOODS: "Lalondb" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA S. LALONDB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TYSON FOODS, INC., DONNIE
SMITH, AND DENNIS LEATHERBY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01120-
SJD (S.D. Ohio, December 2, 2016), alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act for making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. together with its subsidiaries operate
as a food company worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
     Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Levine, Esq.
     STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
     150 East Fourth Street
     Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
     Phone: 513-621-2120
     Fax: 513-629-9426
     E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
             rrsparks@strausstroy.com
             jalevine@strausstroy.com


UNITED STATES: "Malik" Sues Homeland Security Dept. in Ariz. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Government.
The case is captioned Rinkoo Malik, Raja Mohsin, and Qamar
Pervaiz, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the
Petitioners, v. Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General; Jeh Johnson,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Juan P Osuna, acting
Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; Michael
Zackowski, Assistant Field Office Director, Arizona District, the
Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-04232-JJT--ESW (D. Ariz., Dec. 5,
2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John J Tuchi.

The current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch was nominated by
President Obama after serving as the United States Attorney for
the Eastern District of New York. She was confirmed by the Senate
on April 23, 2015 and sworn in by Vice President Biden on April
27, 2015.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Joseph Kenneth LaCome, Esq.
          LACOME LAW
          14326 N Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd., Suite 1000
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (415) 847 1944


UNIVERSAL CITY: "Fierro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kehaulani Fierro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Universal City Studios LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642460 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid minimum wage, and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

Universal City Studios LLC operates a theme park resort in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Launa Adolph, Esq.
      Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310)531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Chaves Moves to Certify Class of Managers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled KATHY CHAVES, Individually and
on Behalf of others similarly situated v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01933-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.), moves the Court to
conditionally certify a class that consists of "all individuals
who worked or are working for defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,
in its retail supermarket operations as mid-level managers from
March 7, 2013, until the date of the resolution of the present
action, and who are or were eligible for overtime pursuant to the
FLSA[.]"

Kathy Chaves also asks the Court to approve the proposed form of
notice, and to direct the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff's
counsel a list with the names and last known addresses of the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Patricia E. Pannell, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE,
          STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833-5600
          Facsimile: (504) 833-8080
          E-mail: gbr@chehardy.com
                  pep@chehardy.com
                  seh@chehardy.com
                  mas@chehardy.com


ZIMMER BIOMET: "Shah" Suit Alleges Violations of Securities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAJESH M. SHAH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC.,
DAVID C. DVORAK, DANIEL P. FLORIN, and ROBERT J. MARSHALL
JR., Defendants, Case No.: 3:16-cv-815 (N.D. Ind., December 2,
2016), alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects in violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., through various subsidiaries and
related entities, designs develops and manufactures medical
equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Offer Korin, Esq.
     KATZ & KORIN, PC
     334 North Senate Avenue
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: 317-464-1100
     Fax: 317-464-1111
     E-mail: okorin@katzkorin.com

        - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160


ZYNGA INC: "Lee" Case Settlement Subject to Final Documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the case,
Lee v. Pincus, et al., is subject to negotiation and execution of
a final settlement document.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint further states that "Zynga is named as a defendant
herein solely because it is a party to agreements underlying and
relating to the Secondary Offering."  The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who
were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted
to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering.

On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to
dismiss were pending.

On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss
brought by Zynga and the directors and granted the motion to
dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as
defendants.

On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is
complete. A hearing date has not been set.  On August 19, 2015 the
parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director
defendants from the case.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015,
and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on
plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On July
27, 2016, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial
date of October 9, 2017.

A mediation session was conducted on September 20, 2016. The
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle Lee v. Pincus,
et al. as to all defendants for $10.0 million.

The settlement, which is subject to negotiation and execution of a
final settlement document, notice to the class and court approval,
would be funded entirely by insurance and lead to the dismissal of
all claims against the defendants. Accordingly, and also because
no claim for damages is asserted against Zynga in the Lee action,
Zynga is not considered the obligor in the matter, and there would
be no impact to Zynga's financial statements if the final
settlement is consistent with the current agreement.

Given its preliminary nature, it remains possible that the
settlement in principle may not result in a final settlement, and
that the assessment of the possibility of loss or adverse effect
on our financial condition, if any, could therefore change in the
near term.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates social games as live
services played over the Internet and on social networking sites
and mobile platforms.


* Edelson PC Files Suit Against Class Action Objector Law Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of notorious class action "objector" attorneys were
accused on Dec. 5 of extortion; abusing the court system by
engaging in vexatious, harassing litigation; wire fraud; and
racketeering in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuit is seeking millions of
dollars in damages and to prohibit the defendants from misusing
the legal system going forward.

The first-of-its-kind lawsuit was filed by Chicago-based consumer
law firm Edelson PC.  The firm alleges that well-known class
action objector law firms have business models that consist of
objecting to class action lawsuits settlements solely with the
goal of extracting a payment from the law firms involved, and
provide no value to injured parties or perform any substantive
legal work.

Defendants, which include among others The Bandas Law Firm
(Texas), Darrell Palmer Law Office (Calif.), and Noonan Perillo &
Thut (Calif.), are accused of planning and coordinating actions to
extort profit from legitimate and court-approved class action
settlements, and specifically from counsel representing the
classes such as Edelson PC.  The defendants are alleged to have
conspired with one another to extort the plaintiffs.  The proposed
class is comprised of all entities that paid or agreed to pay fees
to defendants related to an objection in a class action
settlement, wherein so subsequent modifications were made to the
settlement, no benefit was provided to the settlement class, and
no court approved the payment.

As an example of how the defendants operate: defendants recruited
an associate to file a frivolous objection to a significant class
action settlement for which Edelson PC had secured court approval.
The objection was overruled by the court.  Defendants then
threatened to appeal, and in a December 1 mediation call with
Edelson PC, defendants gave an ultimatum: pay a minimum of
$225,000 to make defendants (who offered no suggestions or
requests to alter the terms of the settlement in any way to
benefit the class) go away, or else defendants would file the
appeal and hold up, indefinitely, the payment of claims to the
class and court-approved attorneys' fees to class counsel.  Faced
with this lose-lose situation, Edelson PC agreed to pay $225,000,
and told defendants it would disclose the agreement and seek
approval of the court.  Plaintiff, fearing notifying the court of
its extortion attempt would bring unwanted attention, attempted to
then back out of the agreement.

Edelson PC is seeking the defendants be named vexatious litigants
who abused the legal process and be prohibited from filing
objections to class actions without Court approval; that their
actions be found to have violated RICO, the Hobbs Act, and the
Illinois Attorney Act, and constitute wire fraud; and that they
provide monetary compensation for the damage they have causes.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

   http://bankrupt.com/misc/EdelsonPCBandasLawFirmComplaint.pdf



                            *********

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  * * *