CAR_Public/161216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 251




                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in Tennessee
ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Final Hearing of Denver Accord on Feb. 10
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Suit Tossed with Leave to Amend
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Court Wants Securities Suit Revised
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Dearborn Securities Suit Pending

AMGEN INC: Hanks Seeks Review of Ruling in Securities Litigation
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
APPLE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Phillips" Class Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Defends Two Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Securities Litigation Now Final

BANK OF NEW YORK: Two Suits by CD Purchasers Pending in Texas
BANKRATE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 6
BATS GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling in Providence Securities Suit Appeal
BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Seeks Rehearing of Order Affirming Dismissal
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Ashford Unit Faces "Nieder" Suit in Calif.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Toss "Zamir" Amended Suit Underway
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Bonnano's Appellate Brief Due on Dec. 27
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal Filed in "Amey" Suit Over Class Ruling
CRYSTAL CLEAR: Sixth Circuit Appeal Sought in "Cates" Class Suit
CST BRANDS: Faces Four Suits Challenging Merger With Circle K

EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Will Not Be Amended
EMPIRE STATE: Time to Appeal Suit Dismissal Has Now Expired
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,140 Testosterone Cases Pending at Nov. 1
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AndroGel(R) Direct Purchasers' Claims Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Friedman" Suit

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Certain OPANA(R) ER Buyers' Claims Dismissed
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust MDL
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends "Shasha" Shareholder Suit in New York
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Expects Vaginal Mesh Claims to Be Settled
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Has Responded to 3rd Amended RICO Complaint

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm Antitrust MDL Trial Begins in 2017
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bezer Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Class Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Suit
FTD COMPANIES: Objector Appeals Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending

GENERAL MILLS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hamilton" Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faverman Sues Over Asia Pacific Acquisition
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Hialeah Employees Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Time to Appeal $219MM Settlement Has Passed
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice

HERC HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
HERTZ GLOBAL: Awaits Appellate Decision in "Sobel" Suit vs. Unit
HERTZ GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss in Securities Suit Remain Pending
HORTONWORKS INC: Defends "Monachelli" Securities Suit in Calif.
INNERWORKINGS INC: "Van Noppen" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: To Settle 3 Suits Over Celator Acquisition
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Cochran Appeals Ruling in "Russell" Class Suit
LIBERTY MEDIA: Awaits Final OK of Sirius XM's $35-Mil. Settlement
LIPOCINE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Combine Shareholder Suits
MDL 02295: Has Paid $18 Million to Settle TCPA Suits

NASDAQ INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Still Pending
NASDAQ INC: Awaits 2nd Circuit's Action in "Lanier" Suit Appeal
NASDAQ INC: Awaits SEC's Views Over Issues in Providence Suit
NAVIENT STUDENT: BlackRock Suit Parties May Pursue Discovery
NAVIENT STUDENT: Discovery in Royal Park Class Suit Ongoing

NAVIENT STUDENT: Lord Abbett Files Amended Consolidated Complaint
NEW JERSEY, USA: Aruanno Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in "Alves" Suit
NEWLINK GENETICS: "Abramson" Suit Lead Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
NEWS CORP: "Wilder" Stockholders Class Suit Has Been Closed
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Douvris' Motion for Joinder

PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Oregon Suits
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Agrees to Settle "Wilder" Suit for $2.3 Million
PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Defends Suits Arising From Line 901 Incident
PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Line 901 Spill Pending
PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Suit Over Pocahontas Pump Release Dismissed

POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Appeal in "Kwasnik" Suit
QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Has Concluded
REALPAGE INC: E.D. Virginia Refuses to Dismiss "Jenkins" Suit
REALPAGE INC: Fails to Win Nod to Dismiss "Stokes" Class Suit
ROCKET FUEL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Suit Claims' Processing Ongoing
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Exploration Unit Faces "West" Suit in Oklahoma
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Gernandt Will Not Recover Anything Under Plan
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Lanier Trust Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Processing of "Peck" Claims Still Ongoing

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing
SHRED-IT USA: Kirchner Appeals From E.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park vs. Deutsche Bank
SLM STUDENT: Lead Plaintiff Amends Securities Suit vs. Navient
SLM STUDENT: Parties in BlackRock Suit May Promulgate Discovery

STARZ: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Merger With Lions Gate Unit
TEXAS, USA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dunsmore" Class Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending
VIVINT SOLAR: Awaits Appellate Decision on "Hyatt" Suit Dismissal
VIVINT SOLAR: Has Paid $1.7-Mil. in Calif. Suit Settlement Fund

WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Zouzout" Consumer Class Action Suit in Canada
WEX INC: Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Contractors Suits vs. Units Still in Initial Stage
XPO LOGISTICS: Defends Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile TCPA Claims Still in Initial Stages

XPO LOGISTICS: Payments in "Mendoza" Case Settlement Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Settles "Pina" Wage and Hour Suit vs. LTL Unit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Sends Reinsurance Issue to NY App. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Summary Judgment in "Linsowe" Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puget Sound No Longer a Defendant in "Johnson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACL Directed to Produce Docs in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversity Show Cause Order Issued in "Schmidt"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote's Suit vs. Aviva Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pudsey Widow Seeks Info From Husband Co-Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Husband's Anglesey Co-Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Probing on Husband Asbestos-Related Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minnesota Couple Sues Crown, Cork, et al.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bronchoalveolar Lavage Accurate for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sinclair Pays EPA $65K for Asbestos Cleanup


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated shareholder lawsuit against AAC Holdings, Inc.,
remains pending in the Middle District of Tennessee, according to
the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al. and Tenzyk c.
AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.). The plaintiff generally alleges that
the Company and certain of its current and former officers
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 and failing to
disclose certain information.  On September 14, 2015, a second
class action against the same defendants asserting essentially the
same allegations was filed in the same court.  On October 26,
2015, the court entered an order consolidating these two described
actions into one action.

On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
On July 1, 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

In a related matter, on November 28, 2015, a shareholder filed a
derivative action on behalf of AAC Holdings, Inc. in the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada (Bushansky v.
Jerrod N. Menz et al.) against AAC's board of directors and
certain of its officers alleging that these directors and officers
breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in mismanagement and
illegal conduct. On January 19, 2016, the Court entered an Order
staying this litigation pending the earlier of the close of
discovery in the related securities class action pending in
Tennessee or the deadline for appealing any dismissal of the
securities class action.

The Company says it intends to defend these actions vigorously.
At this time, the Company cannot predict the results of litigation
with certainty and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if
any.

AAC Holdings, Inc., is a provider of inpatient and outpatient
substance abuse treatment services for individuals with drug and
alcohol addiction.  The Company also performs drug testing and
diagnostics laboratory services and provides physician services to
its clients.


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Final Hearing of Denver Accord on Feb. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of the settlement in the Denver
Securities Litigation is currently set for February 10, 2017,
according to Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc.'s Nov. 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and
former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver,
Colorado ("U.S. District Court"). This lawsuit and a companion
case were originally filed in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the
U.S. District Court consolidated these cases and appointed the
United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and
approved its selection of the law firms. The consolidated case is
now captioned United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced
Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District
Court, D. Colo.) (the "Denver Securities Litigation").

The lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Class
Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated
Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the
Company and certain current and former Company officers.
Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants ("Defendants")
misrepresented to the investing public the Company's financial
condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and
maintain the market price of ADES's common stock. The Consolidated
Complaint alleges two claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, and 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
together with costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
the class action, among other relief, and alleges a class period
covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of ADES
or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class period
from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on
June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to
meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b)
claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required
for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and
Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015. On March 7,
2016, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the case while
the parties mediated the matter. On March 8, 2016, the motion to
stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied
without prejudice with the option to refile should mediation fail.
The case was stayed until further order of the U.S. District
Court.

Following the mediation, which occurred in May of 2016, the
parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Denver
Securities Litigation, and on June 30, 2016, the parties entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Denver
Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety. Under the
terms of the Denver Settlement, a payment of $4.0 million will be
made in exchange for the release of claims against the defendants
and other released parties by the lead plaintiff and all
settlement class members, and for the dismissal of the action with
prejudice. The Denver Settlement remains subject to the final
approval of the U.S. District Court. Prior to any final U.S.
District Court approval of the Denver Settlement, potential
settlement class members (i.e., all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during
May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015 ((both dates inclusive),
with limited exclusions), will have an opportunity to exclude
themselves from participating in the Denver Settlement or to raise
objections with the U.S. District Court regarding the Denver
Settlement or any part thereof.

On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Denver Securities
Litigation filed the Denver Settlement and related exhibits with
the U.S. District Court and moved, among other things, for the
U.S. District Court to preliminarily approve the Denver
Settlement, to approve the contents and procedures for notice to
potential settlement class members, to certify the Denver
Securities Litigation as a class action for settlement purposes
only, and to schedule a hearing for the U.S. District Court to
consider final approval of the Denver Settlement (the "Motion for
Preliminary Approval"). On October 13, 2016, the U.S. District
Court issued an order granting the unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval and set a hearing for the U.S. District Court
to consider final approval of the Denver Settlement on February
10, 2017.

The Denver Settlement contains no admission of liability, and all
of the Defendants in the Denver Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. If the Denver Settlement is
approved by the U.S. District Court, the Company's insurance
carriers will fund the $4.0 million Denver Settlement. In the
event the Denver Settlement is not approved by the U.S. District
Court or otherwise does not become effective for any reason, the
Denver Settlement will become null and void, all things of value
will be returned to the party providing them, and the case will
move forward. Under those circumstances, all of the Defendants
intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had a recorded liability of
$4.0 million in connection with the Denver Settlement as the
losses in connection with this matter were probable and reasonably
estimable under U.S. GAAP. The liability was originally recorded
as of June 30, 2016 in the Legal settlements and accruals line
item of the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of September
30, 2016, the Company also had a recorded receivable of $4.0
million in connection with the Denver Settlement as the Company's
insurance carriers will fund the full settlement.

Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation with
its principal office located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, is
principally engaged in providing environmental and emissions
control equipment, technologies and specialty chemicals to the
coal-burning electric power generation industry.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Suit Tossed with Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
San Mateo dismissed with leave to amend certain claims a
securities class action lawsuit against Adverum Biotechnologies,
Inc., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2016.

In December 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its board of directors, underwriters of its
January 13, 2015, follow-on public stock offering, and two of its
institutional stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo. The complaint alleges
that, in connection with the Company's follow-on stock offering,
the defendants violated the Securities Act in essentially the same
manner alleged by the consolidated federal action: by allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements and by allegedly
omitting material information related to the Phase 2a clinical
trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys'
fees and other costs. The plaintiff has dismissed the two
institutional stockholder defendants. In August 2016, the Court
denied the Company's motion to stay without prejudice, denied the
Company's demurrer, and dismissed with leave to amend certain
claims against the underwriter defendants.

The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The
Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
actions. While the Company has various insurance policies related
to the risks associated with its business, including directors'
and officers' liability insurance policies, there is no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense of the actions,
that its insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient, or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict
at this time the timing or outcomes of these matters or estimate
the amount of losses, or range of losses, if any, or their effect,
if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware on
July 17, 2006, as Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. and changed its
name to Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. on May 11, 2016.  The
Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California.  The Company
is a gene therapy company committed to discovering and developing
novel medicines that can offer potentially life-changing
therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from chronic or
debilitating and rare diseases.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Court Wants Securities Suit Revised
------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal district court dismissed a consolidated
securities class action complaint against Adverum Biotechnologies,
Inc., but gave Plaintiffs until December 2, 2016, to file an
amended consolidated complaint, Adverum said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In July 2015, three securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
each on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly traded securities
between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits assert
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act) and
allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs. An amended consolidated complaint
was filed in February 2016.

On November 3, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  It set a deadline of December
2, 2016 for plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint.

The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The
Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
actions. While the Company has various insurance policies related
to the risks associated with its business, including directors'
and officers' liability insurance policies, there is no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense of the actions,
that its insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient, or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict
at this time the timing or outcomes of these matters or estimate
the amount of losses, or range of losses, if any, or their effect,
if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware on
July 17, 2006, as Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. and changed its
name to Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. on May 11, 2016.  The
Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California.  The Company
is a gene therapy company committed to discovering and developing
novel medicines that can offer potentially life-changing
therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from chronic or
debilitating and rare diseases.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Dearborn Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System's appeal
from the dismissal of its securities class action lawsuit remains
pending, Align Technology, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"),
Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock (the "Securities
Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which
named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 31, 2012
and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align,
Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the
amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period
defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment
charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent
Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of
2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered the Company's
financial statements and projections of future earnings materially
false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended
complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs
and attorneys' fees.

On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on Jan. 8,
2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On
August 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing
for the appeals was completed in May 2015 and the Ninth Circuit
held oral arguments in October 2016.

Align says it intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any.


AMGEN INC: Hanks Seeks Review of Ruling in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Donald Hanks filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled IN RE AMGEN INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:07-cv-02536-PSG-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott Kairalla, et al. v.
Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56769, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an order approving a settlement to resolve the Case.
The Settlement provides for a total payment of $95 million in cash
for the benefit of the Class.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 23, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 23, 2017;

   -- Appellant Donald Hanks' opening brief is due on May 2,
      2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Amgen, Inc., City of Boca
      Raton Police & Firefighters Retirement System, Connecticut
      Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, Willard H. Dere, John A.
      Elden, Dennis M. Fenton, Edward V. Fritzky, Gary Jaffe,
      Franklin P. Johnson Jr., Scott Kairalla, London Pensions
      Fund Authority, Brian M. McNamee, Melanie Mendell, George
      J. Morrow, Richard D. Nanula, Gilbert S. Omenn, Roger M.
      Perlmutter, Burt Rosenfeld and Kevin W. Sharer is due on
      June 1, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee SCOTT KAIRALLA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

Plaintiff-Appellee CITY OF BOCA RATON POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS
RETIREMENT SYSTEM is represented by:

          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          BERMAN DeVALERIO
          One California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com
                  jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees MELANIE MENDELL, GARY JAFFE, JOHN A. ELDEN
and BURT ROSENFELD are represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN P.L.L.P
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS is
represented by:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Richard Joffe, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq.
          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com
                  rjoffe@labaton.com
                  jjohnson@labaton.com
                  cmcdonald@labaton.com
                  jplasse@labaton.com
                  mrogers@labaton.com

               - and -

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-6469
          Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
          E-mail: Gnelson@kreindler.com

Defendants-Appellees AMGEN, INC., KEVIN W. SHARER, RICHARD D.
NANULA, ROGER M. PERLMUTTER and GEORGE J. MORROW are represented
by:

          Steven Feldman, Esq.
          Moez Kaba, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 788-4272
          Facsimile: (888) 755-0898
          E-mail: sfeldman@hueston.com
                  mkaba@hueston.com

               - and -

          John Charles Hueston, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 229-8640
          E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com

Defendant-Appellee AMGEN, INC., is represented by:

          Andrew Jeffrey Strabone, Esq.
          Glenn Vanzura, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Telephone: (310) 277-1010
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5315
          E-mail: astrabone@irell.com
                  gvanzura@irell.com

Defendants-Appellees KEVIN W. SHARER, WILLARD H. DERE, DENNIS M.
FENTON, BRIAN M. MCNAMEE, EDWARD V. FRITZKY, GILBERT S. OMENN and
FRANKLIN P. JOHNSON, Jr., are represented by:

          Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Ampio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., remains pending in California, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the
Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging
that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting
information regarding the STEP study. The cases were consolidated,
and on February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Sections 11 and 15 under the Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of common stock
from January 13, 2014 through August 21, 2014, including
purchasers in the Company's offering on February 28, 2014. On
April 8, 2016, Ampio and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The Court granted the motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend, on August 4, 2016.

On September 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint, alleging the same claims set forth in the consolidated
amended complaint during the same class period. The lawsuits seek
unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company currently believes
the likelihood of a loss contingency related to these matters is
remote and, therefore, no provision for a loss contingency is
required.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused primarily on developing compounds that decrease
inflammation by (i) inhibiting specific pro-inflammatory compounds
by affecting specific pathways at the protein expression and at
the transcription level; (ii) activating specific phosphatase or
depleting available phosphate needed for the inflammation process;
and (iii) decreasing vascular permeability.


APPLE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Phillips" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Cottrell, Suzanne Schmidt Phillips and William
Scott Phillips filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuits entitled William Phillips, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case
Nos. 5:15-cv-04879-LHK and 5:15-cv-05205-LHK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

The matter arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to
adequately disclose and represent, among other things, the true
nature of the Wi-Fi Assist included in the recently released
iOS 9 operating system.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue,
although Apple ensured that the Wi-Fi Assist application is
installed on the phone as automatically activated, Apple failed to
fully disclose that if Wi-Fi Assist is left activated it will
allow the phone to automatically switch to using cellular data.

The appellate case is captioned as William Phillips, et al. v.
Apple, Inc., Case No. 16-17189, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 28, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 27, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants William Cottrell, Suzanne
      Schmidt Phillips and William Scott Phillips is due on
      March 8, 2017;

   -- Appellee Apple, Inc.'s answering brief is due on April 7,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM SCOTT PHILLIPS, SUZANNE SCHMIDT
PHILLIPS and WILLIAM COTTRELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          John Givens Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
          Sean Clinton Woods, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: mcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15090
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN P.L.L.P
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          80 South 8th Street
          1650 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

Defendant-Appellee APPLE, INC., is represented by:

          Bambo Obaro, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Parkway
          Redwood City, CA 94065-1175
          Telephone: (650) 802-3083
          Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
          E-mail: bambo.obaro@weil.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Defends Two Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend itself
against two consolidated lawsuits in New York alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The primary
claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The
lawsuits have been consolidated into two suits which are pending
in federal court in the Southern District of New York and are all
in their early stages.

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

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global investments
company dedicated to improving lives through investing.  The
Company manages and services assets for financial institutions,
corporations and individual investors in 35 countries and more
than 100 markets.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Securities Litigation Now Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that its
settlement of a putative class action lawsuit asserting securities
law violations is now final.

Beginning in December 2009, government authorities conducted
inquiries seeking information relating primarily to standing
instruction foreign exchange transactions in connection with
custody services BNY Mellon provides to custody clients. On
various dates beginning in 2009, BNY Mellon was named as a
defendant in lawsuits by various government and private entities
alleging BNY Mellon's pricing of standing instruction foreign
exchange transactions was improper.

On March 19, 2015, BNY Mellon announced that it had resolved
substantially all of the pending standing instruction-related
actions, resulting in a total of $714 million in settlement
payments. On May 21, 2015, BNY Mellon settled a putative class
action lawsuit asserting securities law violations.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 21,
2015, the total settlement amount is fully covered by pre-existing
legal reserves. The U.S. Department of Justice and New York
Attorney General will each receive $167.5 million. The U.S.
Department of Labor will receive $14 million and the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, with which the Company has
reached a settlement in principle, will receive $30 million. The
Company has agreed to pay $335 million to settle the customer
class action litigation.

With these settlements, which are now all final, BNY Mellon has
effectively resolved virtually all of the standing instruction FX-
related actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by
individual customers or shareholders asserting derivative claims.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global investments
company dedicated to improving lives through investing.  The
Company manages and services assets for financial institutions,
corporations and individual investors in 35 countries and more
than 100 markets.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Two Suits by CD Purchasers Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits brought by purchasers of certificates of deposit
against Pershing LLC, an indirect subsidiary of The Bank of New
York Mellon Corporation, remain pending in Texas, according to the
Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC became a clearing firm for
Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer that was
part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen
Stanford. Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by
Stanford, issued certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors
allegedly wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In
2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in
connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into
receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 15 lawsuits
against Pershing that are pending in Texas, including two putative
class actions. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's
clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert
contractual, statutory and common law claims. In addition, one
FINRA arbitration matter brought by alleged purchasers remains
pending.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global investments
company dedicated to improving lives through investing.  The
Company manages and services assets for financial institutions,
corporations and individual investors in 35 countries and more
than 100 markets.


BANKRATE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
scheduled a hearing for February 6, 2017, to determine whether to
give final approval to Bankrate, Inc.'s settlement of a securities
litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is
captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No.
14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court
dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice
for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or
omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8,
2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging
that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial
statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and
therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages.
Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a
March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's
securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive.

On May 17, 2016, the Company announced a proposed agreement,
subject to Court approval, to settle this private securities class
action against all defendants. Bankrate would pay a total of $20
million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims
asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9,
2014. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate
denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Preliminary approval
of the settlement was granted by the court on August 25, 2016, and
notice of the proposed settlement is being given to the class.

The Court has scheduled a hearing for February 6, 2017 to
determine whether to give the settlement final approval. The
Company accrued for the settlement amount as of June 30, 2016.
Approximately $13.8 million of the settlement fund has been funded
from insurance proceeds.

Bankrate, Inc., owns and operates an Internet-based consumer
banking, personal finance and senior care network.  The Company's
flagship Web sites, Bankrate.com, CreditCards.com and Caring.com
are some of the Internet's leading aggregators of information on
more than 300 financial and senior care products and services,
including mortgages, deposits, credit cards, other personal
finance categories and senior care resources.  Additionally, the
Company provides financial applications and information to a
network of distribution partners and through national and state
publications.


BATS GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling in Providence Securities Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, Inc., awaits decision on an appeal filed by
the City of Providence, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge, as well as 14 other securities
exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all
public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the
United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on a
registered public stock exchange (Exchange Defendants) or a United
States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result
of the misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes
allegations that the defendants committed fraud through a variety
of business practices associated with, among other things, what is
commonly referred to as high frequency trading.  On May 2, 2014
and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel
Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action
lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately
consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities
class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of
New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the
Complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the
dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7,
2016.  Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral
argument was held on August 24, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company says
it is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from
this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

Bats Global Markets, Inc., is a global financial technology
company that provides trade execution, market data, trade
reporting, connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers,
market makers, asset managers and other market participants,
ultimately benefiting retail and institutional investors across
multiple asset classes.


BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Seeks Rehearing of Order Affirming Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold R. Lanier filed a petition for rehearing of a judgment
affirming the District Court's dismissal of all three class action
lawsuits, according to Bats Global Markets, Inc.'s November 8,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three
class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against
Bats and other securities exchanges.  The complaints were
identical in all substantive respects, but each related to the
dissemination of market data under a different market system-- (i)
the NASDAQ UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market System;
and (iii) the Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated
Tape System.  Each of the actions purported to be brought on
behalf of all subscribers who entered into contracts with the
exchanges for the receipt of market data and were injured as a
result of the misconduct detailed in the complaints, which
includes allegations that the defendants did not provide market
data services in a non-discriminatory manner or provide
subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., data that is accurate and not
stale).  On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the
Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending
Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court
filed an Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits
with prejudice.  On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal of the dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed
its appeal brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24,
2015 and Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015.
Oral argument was held on March 3, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, the Court filed a Judgment affirming the
District Court's dismissal of all three class action lawsuits.
Appellant thereafter filed a petition for a rehearing before the
panel or the entire appellate court on October 7, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company says
it is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from
this litigation.  However, the Company believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

Bats Global Markets, Inc., is a global financial technology
company that provides trade execution, market data, trade
reporting, connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers,
market makers, asset managers and other market participants,
ultimately benefiting retail and institutional investors across
multiple asset classes.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Ashford Unit Faces "Nieder" Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a putative
class action lawsuit styled Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC,
filed in California, according to the Company's November 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and
hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal
breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as
well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company says it has not yet responded to the complaint and
intends to vigorously defend against it. The outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued any liability associated with this action.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider
of postsecondary education services.  The Company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Ashford University(R) and University of the
Rockies(SM), are regionally accredited academic institutions.
Ashford University offers associate's, bachelor's and master's
programs, and University of the Rockies offers master's and
doctoral programs.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Toss "Zamir" Amended Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., awaits a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the securities lawsuit entitled Zamir v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc., et al., according to the Company's November 8,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants. On November
24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and
granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and
the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016,
which is currently pending with the Court.

The Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain
at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that
may arise. Based on information available to the Company at
present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider
of postsecondary education services.  The Company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Ashford University(R) and University of the
Rockies(SM), are regionally accredited academic institutions.
Ashford University offers associate's, bachelor's and master's
programs, and University of the Rockies offers master's and
doctoral programs.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Bonnano's Appellate Brief Due on Dec. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' opening brief in their appeal from the dismissal
of the securities lawsuit captioned Bonnano v. Cellular
Biomedicine Group, Inc., is due on December 27, 2016, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine
Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also
named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony
Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The
complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014,
through April 7, 2015, the Company made material
misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The
complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all
defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the
individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of
the damages sought.

On June 3, 2015, defendants were served.  On June 29, 2015, the
Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are
not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action
until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed. The
deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015. On that date, one
motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative
plaintiff Michelle Jackson. On August 3, 2015, having received no
opposition, the Court appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the
Rosen Law Firm as class counsel. As stipulated among the parties,
Jackson filed an amended class action complaint on September 17,
2015.

The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and
entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are
affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the
Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional
defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does
not assert any claims against Mr. Liu.

On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was argued on April 20, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On June 6, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on June 30, 2016,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion
was held on August 17, 2016. On September 2, 2016, the Court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and entered
judgment against Plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs must file
their opening brief on December 27, 2016, to proceed with the
appeal.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with
patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company
in the matter. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
to estimate the range of potential loss.

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., is a biomedicine company,
principally engaged in the development of new treatments for
cancerous and degenerative diseases utilizing proprietary cell-
based technologies.  The Company's technology includes two major
platforms: (i) Immune Cell therapy for treatment of a broad range
of cancers using : Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cell (CAR-T),
cancer vaccine, and T Central Memory Cell (Tcm) technology, and
(ii) human adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells (haMPC)
for treatment of joint and autoimmune diseases, with primary
research and manufacturing facilities in China.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal Filed in "Amey" Suit Over Class Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in the lawsuit initiated by Joseph Amey, et al.,
appealed the Court's determination that class certification is not
appropriate and that a California Private Attorney General Act
representative action is not appropriate, Cinemark Holdings, Inc.,
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

The case entitled Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case
No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, presents
putative class action claims for damages and attorney's fees
arising from employee wage and hour claims under California law
for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid
wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements violations. The
claims are also asserted as a representative action under the
California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Company
denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate
and denies that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and
is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any
violation of law and plans to vigorously defend against all
claims.

The Court determined that class certification is not appropriate
and determined that a PAGA representative action is not
appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The Company
says it is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the
range of potential loss.

Cinemark Holdings, Inc., operates in the motion picture exhibition
industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay.


CRYSTAL CLEAR: Sixth Circuit Appeal Sought in "Cates" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Cates, Brian Stover and Jason Miller filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Courtney Cates, et al. v.
Crystal Clear Technologies, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at
Nashville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages and injunction against
Defendants from preventing other telecommunications providers to
serve the neighborhoods pursuant to Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Courtney Cates, et al. v.
Crystal Clear Technologies, et al., Case No. 16-6714, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant brief is due on January 9, 2017; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on February 6, 2017.

Plaintiffs-Appellants COURTNEY CATES, BRIAN STOVER and JASON
MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Benjamin Andrew Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PPLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: beng@BSJFirm.com

Defendants-Appellees CRYSTAL CLEAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, CARBINE &
ASSOCIATES, BRIDGEMORE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, and TOLLGATE FARMS,
LLC, are represented by:

          David Alexander Fardon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ALEXANDER FARDON
          P.O. Box 198528
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 517-5680

Defendants-Appellees TOLLGATE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION INC. and
BRIDGEMORE VILLAGE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION INC.

          Valerie Leigh Diden Moore, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-9270
          E-mail: valerie.moore@butlersnow.com


CST BRANDS: Faces Four Suits Challenging Merger With Circle K
-------------------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc., is facing four class action lawsuits challenging
its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Circle K Stores Inc.,
according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.

On August 21, 2016, CST Brands, Inc., entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Circle K Stores Inc., a Texas corporation
("Parent"), and Ultra Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation
and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").
Under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into CST, with CST
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.
Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alimentation Couche-Tard
Inc.

Four separate complaints have been filed by purported stockholders
of CST commencing putative class action lawsuits challenging the
Merger in the San Antonio Division of the United States District
Court in the Western District of Texas. The first complaint,
captioned Richard Malone v. CST Brands, Inc. et. al. (No. 5:16-cv-
0955), was filed on September 26, 2016 and names as defendants CST
and the directors of CST. That complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act
by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement that was
allegedly materially incomplete and misleading.

The second complaint, captioned Harry Savage v. CST Brands, Inc.
et. al. (No. 5:16-cv-0968), was filed on September 29, 2016 and
names as defendants CST, the directors of CST, Parent and Merger
Sub. That complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of CST breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price in an allegedly unfair process and that
they violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement that was
allegedly materially incomplete and misleading, and that Parent
and Merger Sub allegedly aided and abetted their breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The third complaint, captioned Jacob Kempler Family Trust v. CST
Brands, Inc. (No. 5:16-cv-00982), was filed on October 4, 2016 and
names as defendants CST and the directors of CST. That complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
under the Exchange Act by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy
statement that was allegedly materially incomplete and misleading.

The fourth complaint, captioned Patrick Zellner vs. CST Brands,
Inc., et al. (No. 5:16-cv-01012-FB). That complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the
Exchange Act by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement
that was allegedly materially incomplete and misleading. In each
suit, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining completion of the merger, monetary damages and costs and
attorneys' fees. On October 11, 2016 a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction was filed in the Malone litigation and briefings were
completed by November 5, 2016.

The Company believes these claims are without merit.

CST Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company and
conducts substantially all of its operations through its
subsidiaries.  The Company's U.S. Retail segment operations are
substantially a company-owned and operated convenience store
business.  The Company's Canadian Retail segment includes company-
owned and operated convenience stores, commission agents,
independent dealers, cardlocks and business and home energy
operations.  The CrossAmerica segment is engaged in the wholesale
distribution of motor fuels.


EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Will Not Be Amended
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lead
plaintiff of a consolidated securities lawsuit does not intend to
amend his complaint and will, instead, appeal a judgment in favor
of the Defendants.

In July 2015, three putative securities class action complaints
(captioned Fialkov v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1458-
AJB-DHB, Lorusso v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1501-L-
JLB and Jacobs v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1529-AJB-
MDD) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Celladon and certain of Celladon's
current and former officers. The complaints generally allege that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the clinical
trial program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Celladon's common stock. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees. On
September 1, 2015, six stockholders (or groups of stockholders)
filed motions to consolidate the three putative securities class
actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs (the "Motions to
Consolidate"). A hearing on the Motions to Consolidate was held on
December 3, 2015.

On December 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the three putative
securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016. On April 29,
2016, the defendants, including Eiger, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amendment complaint. On June 28, 2016, lead
plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On July 28, 2016, the defendants
filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss.

On October 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On October 18,
2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice that stated he does not intend
to amend the complaint, an upon the Court's entry of judgment in
favor of defendants, lead plaintiff will file a notice to appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Due to the early stage of
these proceedings, the Company is not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims.

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., was incorporated in the state of
Delaware on November 6, 2008.  The Company is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company that brings to market novel products for
the treatment of orphan diseases.  The Company's principal
operations are based in Palo Alto, California.


EMPIRE STATE: Time to Appeal Suit Dismissal Has Now Expired
-----------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the time
for any further appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated class
action lawsuit has now expired.

Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the
"Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L.
Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of
former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.

Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of
the Second Class Actions named the Company and its operating
partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were
consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was appointed
by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint
was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name the Company or its
operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On
March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss
was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.

On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement
the record on appeal to include additional materials from the
Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion
was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal
by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on
March 23, 2015. Oral argument on the appeal was held on October
28, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the appellate court affirmed
dismissal of the Second Class Actions.

The plaintiffs moved the appellate court for leave to appeal to
the New York Court of Appeals. On March 1, 2016, the appellate
court denied the motion. On March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs moved
for leave to appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, which the
Court of Appeals denied on June 9, 2016. The time for any further
appeal of this dismissal has now expired.

Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., is a self-administered and self-
managed real estate investment trust that owns, manages, operates,
acquires, redevelops and repositions office and retail properties
in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,140 Testosterone Cases Pending at Nov. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,140 testosterone cases are currently pending
against Endo International plc, as of November 1, 2016, according
to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and
hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), along with other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription medications containing testosterone, including
Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and
Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular
and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive
damages, where available.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium,
and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable
cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the
federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against
EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in
certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that described
above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various
jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545.

However, the Company says, it cannot predict the timing or outcome
of any such litigation, or whether any such additional litigation
will be brought against the Company. The Company says it intends
to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as
appropriate in the Company's best interest.

As of November 1, 2016, approximately 1,140 cases are currently
pending against the Company; some of which may have been filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AndroGel(R) Direct Purchasers' Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims by the direct purchasers of AndroGel(R) remain pending,
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In January 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the FTC) filed
a lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. (subsequently renamed Endo Generics Holdings, Inc.
and referred as Par), in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, which was subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and
which alleged violations of antitrust law arising out of Par's
settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic
version of AndroGel(R). The FTC complaint generally seeks a
finding that Par's settlement agreement violates Section 5(a) of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, and a permanent injunction
against Par's ability to engage in certain types of patent
settlements in the future. Beginning in February 2009, certain
private plaintiffs, including distributors and retailers, filed
similar litigation. Generally, the remaining private plaintiff
suits seek equitable relief, unspecified damages and costs.

In February 2010, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss
the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part a motion
to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. In April 2012,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision on the motion to dismiss the FTC's
claims. In September 2012, the District Court granted a motion for
summary judgment against the private plaintiffs' claims of sham
litigation. In July 2013, the Supreme Court of the U.S. reversed
the Court of Appeals' and District Court's decisions concerning
the FTC action and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In May 2016, those private plaintiffs representing the putative
class of indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case
against Par with prejudice. Claims by the direct purchasers and
the FTC are still pending.

The Company says it intends to contest this litigation vigorously
and to explore all options as appropriate in the Company's best
interest.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Friedman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Craig Friedman,
according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.

In May 2016, a putative class action entitled Craig Friedman v.
Endo International plc Company, Rajiv de Silva and Suketu Upadhyay
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated shareholders. In August 2016, the Steamfitters'
Industry Pension Fund and Steamfitters' Industry Security Benefit
Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs in the action. In October
2016, a Second Amended Complaint was filed. The lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based
on the Company's revision of its 2016 earnings guidance and
certain disclosures about its generics business, the integration
of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (subsequently renamed Endo
Generics Holdings, Inc. and referred as Par) and its subsidiaries,
certain other alleged business issues and the receipt of a CID
from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York regarding contracts with Pharmacy Benefit Managers concerning
Frova(R).

The Second Amended Complaint adds Paul Campanelli as a defendant.
The complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified
amount and attorney's fees and costs. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the case in October 2016.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and
at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, for this matter, but will explore all options as
appropriate in the Company's best interest and the Company intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Certain OPANA(R) ER Buyers' Claims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants successfully moved to dismiss certain indirect
purchaser unjust enrichment claims in the lawsuits brought by
purchasers of OPANA(R) ER, Endo International plc said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER have filed
cases against the Company's subsidiaries Endo Health Solutions
Inc. (EHSI) and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), and other
pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.,
which the Company subsequently acquired, and Impax Laboratories
Inc. (Impax), all of which have been transferred and coordinated
for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Some of these
cases have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and
indirect purchasers, while others have been filed on behalf of
individual retailers or health care benefit plans. These cases
generally allege that the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to
settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple patents
pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re-
formulation of OPANA(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints
allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes, as well as state common law. These cases
generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits,
restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In February
2016, the District Court issued orders (i) denying defendants'
motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers, (ii)
denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the claims of the indirect purchasers, but giving them permission
to file amended complaints and (iii) granting defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaints filed by certain retailers, but giving
them permission to file amended complaints.

In response to the District Court's orders, the indirect
purchasers filed an amended complaint to which the defendants
filed a renewed motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain
retailers have also filed amended complaints. The defendants
successfully moved to dismiss the indirect purchaser unjust
enrichment claims arising under the laws of the states of
California, Rhode Island and Illinois.

The Company says it cannot predict whether or not additional cases
similar to those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs
or the timing or outcome of any such litigation.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc is defending itself and a subsidiary from
claims in the multidistrict litigation entitled In Re Generic
Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation pending in
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Beginning in January 2016, several complaints, including multiple
class action complaints, have been filed in the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas and in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and the District of Rhode Island against
the Company and certain of the Company's subsidiaries, including
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (subsequently renamed Endo
Generics Holdings, Inc. and referred as Par), along with other
manufacturers of certain generic pharmaceutical products, seeking
compensatory and punitive or treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief and alleging that certain marketing and pricing practices
by the defendant companies violated state law, including consumer
protection law and/or federal and state antitrust laws. The U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407, issued an order in August 2016 transferring certain
of these cases as In Re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2724, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Company says additional similar claims may be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends "Shasha" Shareholder Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc is defending a purported class action
lawsuit commenced by Doris Shasha in New York, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On November 7, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by an
individual shareholder on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated shareholders, bearing the caption Doris Shasha v. Endo
International plc Company, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It alleges that the Company
made material false statements in, or omitted material information
from, certain of the Company's public disclosures from September
28, 2015 through November 2, 2016, based on news reports of an
investigation by the Department of Justice into potential price
collusion in the pharmaceutical industry. The complaint seeks
class certification, damages in an unspecified amount and
attorney's fees and costs.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and
at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, for this matter, but will explore all options as
appropriate in the Company's best interest and the Company intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Expects Vaginal Mesh Claims to Be Settled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it expects that
valid claims under the Master Settlement Agreements resolving
Vaginal Mesh Cases will continue to be settled.

In October 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification
(October 2008 Public Health Notification) regarding potential
complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical
mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary
incontinence (SUI). The notification provides recommendations and
encourages physicians to seek specialized training in mesh
procedures, to advise their patients about the risks associated
with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and
reporting complications.

In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public
Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public
and the medical community of the potential complications
associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat
POP and SUI. In the July 2011 update, the FDA stated that adverse
events are not rare. Furthermore, the FDA questioned the relative
effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a treatment for POP as
compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The July 2011 notification
continued to encourage physicians to seek specialized training in
mesh procedures, to consider and to advise their patients about
the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in
diagnosing and reporting complications. In January 2016, the FDA
issued a statement reclassifying surgical mesh for transvaginal
POP repair from Class II to Class III. Surgical mesh for SUI
repair remains a Class II device.

In January 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal
surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for
urinary incontinence, such as the Company's AMS subsidiary, to
conduct post-market safety studies and to monitor adverse event
rates relating to the use of these products. AMS received a total
of 19 class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic
floor repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to
place 16 of these study orders on hold for a variety of reasons.
AMS commenced three of these post-market study orders; however, in
connection with the wind down of the Astora business, it notified
the FDA of its termination of these studies. The FDA has confirmed
closure of these studies.

Since 2008, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including
AMS and/or Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple
lawsuits in the U.S. in various state courts and in a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West
Virginia (MDL No. 2325), in Canada, where various class action and
individual complaints are pending, and in other countries alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical
mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. Plaintiffs in these
suits allege various personal injuries including chronic pain,
incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanent
deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, where
available.

The Company and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-
related product liability claimants have entered into various
Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other settlement
agreements regarding settling up to approximately 49,000 filed and
unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating
counsel for an aggregate total of approximately $2.8 billion.
These MSAs, which were executed at various times since June 2013,
were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and
are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the
Company or any of its subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a
process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering
the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the
MSAs provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs)
into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules
set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation
thresholds requiring participation by the majority of claims
represented by each law firm party to the MSA. If certain
participation thresholds are not met, then the Company will have
the right to terminate the settlement with that law firm. In
addition, one agreement gives us a unilateral right of approval
regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that
settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under
an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that
agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such
non-participating claim. Funds deposited in QSFs are included in
restricted cash and cash equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlement, shall be kept confidential
by all parties and their counsel.

The Company said, "We expect that valid claims under the MSAs will
continue to be settled. However, we intend to vigorously contest
pending and future claims that are invalid, for which settlement
is not able to be reached or that are in excess of the maximum
claim amounts under the MSAs. We are currently aware of
approximately 8,000 asserted claims and unasserted claims, which
we believe are likely to be asserted, that have not been accrued
for because we lack sufficient information to determine whether
any potential loss is probable. In addition to these asserted and
unasserted claims, which we believe are likely to be asserted,
there may be other claims asserted in the future. It is currently
not possible to estimate the number or validity of any such future
claims."

"In order to evaluate whether a claim is probable of a loss, we
must obtain and evaluate certain information pertaining to each
individual claim, including but not limited to the following
items: the name and social security number of the plaintiff,
evidence of an AMS implant, the date of implant, the date the
claim was first asserted to AMS, the date that plaintiff's counsel
was retained, and most importantly, medical records establishing
the injury alleged. Without access to at least this information
and the opportunity to evaluate it, we are not in a position to
determine its validity or whether a loss is probable. Further, the
timing and extent to which we obtain this information and our
evaluation thereof, is often impacted by items outside of our
control, including, without limitation, the normal cadence of the
litigation process and the provision of claim information to us by
plaintiff's counsel."

"We will continue to monitor the situation, and, if appropriate,
we will make further adjustments to our product liability accrual
based on new information. We intend to continue exploring all
options as appropriate in our best interests, and depending on
developments, there is a possibility that we will suffer adverse
decisions or verdicts of substantial amounts, or that we will
enter into additional monetary settlements. Any unfavorable
outcomes as a result of such litigation or settlements with
respect to any asserted or unasserted claims could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Has Responded to 3rd Amended RICO Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc has filed a response to the third amended
complaint in a lawsuit against its subsidiaries alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2016.

In November 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently converted
to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter referred to as
Auxilium), and various other manufacturers of testosterone
products on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance
companies and other third party payors that had paid for certain
testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts of EPI,
Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers with respect to
certain testosterone products constituted racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), and other civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. Further, the
complaint alleges that EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant
manufacturers violated various state consumer protection laws
through their marketing of certain testosterone products and
raises other state law claims. In March 2015, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs responded by filing
amended complaints.

In February 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for conspiracy to commit racketeering
activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) and claims for
negligent misrepresentation. In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss in June
2016. In August 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss and
the Company filed a response to the third amended complaint in
September 2016.

In October 2015, a similar civil class action complaint was filed
against EPI and other defendant manufacturers in the Northern
District of Illinois. Similar litigation may be brought by other
plaintiffs.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and
at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss for this matter, if any, but the Company will explore all
options as appropriate in the Company's best interest.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm Antitrust MDL Trial Begins in 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2017 in the multidistrict
litigation captioned In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2521, according to Endo International plc's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed
a number of cases against the Company's subsidiary EPI and co-
defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.
(collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc and certain of its
subsidiaries (collectively, Actavis), which was subsequently
acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and its
subsidiaries (collectively, Teva) from Allergan plc (Allergan).
Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes
of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are individual
cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect
purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that
EPI, Teikoku and Actavis (now Teva) entered into an
anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the
settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S.
Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent) and other patents. Some of
the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529
patent in the Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that EPI and
Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that
EPI abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen
petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic
companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of
Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. SectionSection 1, 2) and various state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes as well as common law
remedies in some states. These cases generally seek damages,
treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1407, issued an order in April 2014 transferring
these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In June 2016, motions for class certification were filed on behalf
of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and EPI, Teikoku and
Actavis filed oppositions to those motions in September 2016.
Trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2017.

The Company says litigation similar to that described above may
also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and
cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern
District of California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm
Antitrust Litigation.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic
pharmaceuticals.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bezer Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Adam Bezer filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Jenkins, et al. v. Equifax Information
Services, Case No. 3:15-cv-00443-MHL, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are James Jenkins, Natasha Thomas,
Keith Bohannon, Hampton Brown, Rachel Simms, Connie Voss, Carolyn
Clark, James Neill and Nathaniel Lewis.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Adam Bezer v. Equifax
Information Services, Case No. 16-2350, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Informal Opening Brief is due on December 22, 2016; and

   -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 17 days after
      informal opening brief is filed.

Defendant-Appellee EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, is
represented by:

          Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq.
          Phyllis Buchen Sumner, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  psumner@kslaw.com

               - and -

          John Willard Montgomery, Jr., Esq.
          MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLLP
          2116 Dabney Road
          Richmond, VA 23230-0000
          Telephone: (804) 355-8744
          Facsimile: (804) 355-8748
          E-mail: jmontgomery@jwm-law.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Patrick S. Sweeney filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jenkins, et al. v. Equifax
Information Services, Case No. 3:15-cv-00443-MHL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are James Jenkins, Natasha Thomas,
Keith Bohannon, Hampton Brown, Rachel Simms, Connie Voss, Carolyn
Clark, James Neill and Nathaniel Lewis.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Sweeney v. Equifax
Information Services, Case No. 16-2351, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Fee or application to proceed as indigent is due on
      December 28, 2016;

   -- Informal Opening Brief is due on December 22, 2016; and

   -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 17 days after
      informal opening brief is filed.

Defendant-Appellee EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, is
represented by:

          Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq.
          Phyllis Buchen Sumner, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  psumner@kslaw.com

               - and -

          John Willard Montgomery, Jr., Esq.
          MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLLP
          2116 Dabney Road
          Richmond, VA 23230-0000
          Telephone: (804) 355-8744
          Facsimile: (804) 355-8748
          E-mail: jmontgomery@jwm-law.com


FTD COMPANIES: Objector Appeals Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An objector appealed the dismissal of a consolidated consumer
lawsuit filed in California, according to FTD Companies, Inc.'s
November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer
class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc.
and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing
International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated
during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs'
claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based
membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope
Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership
Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from
certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with
an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of
which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly
damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise
allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members'
billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized
charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees
for the Membership Programs.

On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed
motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August
13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended
complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14,
2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint.
Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in
the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against
Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only);
(3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)
fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9)
negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss
the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on
January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of
February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing
or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous
settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an
effort to resolve this matter.

On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high
level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties
negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the
weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal
written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the
Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and
Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended
complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and
briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval
hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013,
and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the
hearing.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling
objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court
entered judgment on the Settlement on February 21, 2013. The
objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the
Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2,
2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order
deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v.  Netflix, No. 12
15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v.  Netflix,
No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's
approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix
DVD subscribers. On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an
order vacating the judgment in this matter and remanding it to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with Frank v.
Netflix.

The Ninth Circuit's mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the
matter is now pending before the district court to consider final
approval of the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix.

On April 23, 2015, the district court entered an order reopening
the case and ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum
summarizing the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and
stating their intentions going forward. On May 4, 2015, such
memorandum was filed by the parties, and the objector also filed
his own memorandum regarding these same topics on such date. After
receiving the parties, and objector's memoranda, the district
court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final
Settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties filed their
respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18, 2015, the
objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July 2, 2015,
and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental briefs
on July 16, 2015. The pending final settlement approval motion was
heard by the district court on July 27, 2016 and taken under
submission.

On August 9, 2016, the district court entered an order reapproving
the Settlement without any changes, and accordingly entered
judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The objector filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2016. The
date for oral argument on the appeal has not yet been set.

The Company says there are no assurances that other legal actions
or governmental investigations will not be instituted in
connection with the Company's current or former business
practices. The Company cannot predict the outcome of governmental
investigations or other legal actions or their potential
implications for its business.

FTD Companies, Inc., is a floral and gifting company.  While
floral arrangements and plants are its primary offerings, the
Company also markets and sells gift items, including gourmet-
dipped berries and other sweets, personalized gifts, gift baskets,
wine and champagne, jewelry, and spa products.


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the consolidated
securities lawsuit against Galectin Therapeutics Inc. remains
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in
certain press releases and other public statements in violation of
the federal securities laws and seek class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The
Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order
consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and
providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended
complaint to be filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants'
motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff ("Plaintiff'). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015.

The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
(the "Class Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
SEC Rule 10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in
certain SEC filings, press releases and other public statements.
The Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual
Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability
for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant
to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015.

On December 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the putative class
action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the
defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of
the dismissal order and final judgment. The appeal is fully
briefed and is currently pending before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Galectin Therapeutics Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company that is applying its leadership in galectin science and
drug development to create new therapies for fibrotic disease and
cancer.  These candidates are based on the Company's targeting of
galectin proteins, which are key mediators of biologic and
pathologic function. These compounds also may have application for
drugs to treat other diseases and chronic health conditions.


GENERAL MILLS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hamilton" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Hamilton filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Hamilton v. General Mills,
Inc., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00382-MC, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Hamilton v. General
Mills, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-36004, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by January 3, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 30, 2017;

   -- Appellant Christopher Hamilton's opening brief is due on
      March 13, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees General Mills Sales, Inc. and
      General Mills, Inc., is due on April 10, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Barbara Ann Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          P.O. Box 7
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (903) 574-1807
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

Defendants-Appellees GENERAL MILLS, INC., and GENERAL MILLS SALES,
INC., are represented by:

          David Taro Biderman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 344-7003
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
          E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Julia Elizabeth Markley, Esq.
          Joanna T. Perini-Abbott, Esq.
          Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1120 N.W. Couch Street
          Portland, OR 97209-4128
          Telephone: (503) 727-2000
          E-mail: JMarkley@perkinscoie.com
                  JPeriniAbbott@perkinscoie.com
                  CSipos@perkinscoie.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faverman Sues Over Asia Pacific Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., is facing a lawsuit challenging the
proposed acquisition of its publicly owned shares by Asia Pacific
Global Capital Co., Ltd., the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In November 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its chief executive
officer and its current board of directors were named in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Faverman v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Plaintiff
alleges breach of fiduciary duty and seeks to enjoin the
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Genworth Financial,
Inc. common stock by Asia Pacific Global Capital Co., Ltd.,
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Asia Pacific Global Capital
USA Corporation. The lawsuit seeks unspecified rescissory damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and such other and further
equitable relief as the court may deem proper.

The Company says it intends to file a motion to dismiss.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an
initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was
completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings
completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which
Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new
public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding
company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in
connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth
Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization.
Genworth Financial has five operating business segments:  U.S.
Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage
Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Hialeah Employees Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled City of Hialeah Employees'
Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., remains
pending in New York, according to the Company's November 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its
former chief executive officer and its then current chief
financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities
law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning
Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our
plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New
Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and
designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial,
Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On March
25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the motion but entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead."

"On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on
June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss.  On January
22, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
June 16, 2015 order denying our motion to dismiss which the court
denied on March 3, 2016. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016,
the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action. The
Company says it has exhausted all coverage under its 2014
executive and organizational liability insurance program
applicable to this case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage
for Genworth with respect to any settlement or judgment amount
related to this litigation.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an
initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was
completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings
completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which
Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new
public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding
company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in
connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth
Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization.
Genworth Financial has five operating business segments:  U.S.
Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage
Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Time to Appeal $219MM Settlement Has Passed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal the final approval of Genworth Financial,
Inc.'s $219 million settlement of the securities lawsuit initiated
by Manuel Esguerra has expired, according to the Company's
November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its
current chief executive officer and its then current chief
financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving
certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-
term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v.
Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit
names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law
violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as
the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac
lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the
City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement
Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the
action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On
December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint. On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to
dismiss."

"We engaged in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, continuing
into the first quarter of 2016, and accrued $25 million in
connection with this matter during the fourth quarter of 2015,
which was the amount of our self-insured retention on our
executive and organizational liability insurance program. On March
11, 2016, in connection with the mediation, we reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 1, 2016, the
parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement.
The settlement provides for a full release of all defendants in
connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit. We believe
that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but we are settling
the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further
litigation. The agreement provides for a settlement payment to the
class of $219 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs' attorneys fees
and expenses and settlement costs, of which $150 million was paid
by our insurance carriers, and $69 million pre-tax was paid by
Genworth. Our payment was made into an escrow account during the
first quarter of 2016. We also incurred additional legal fees and
expenses of approximately $10 million pre-tax, for a total
additional pre-tax incurred amount of $79 million in the first
quarter of 2016. On April 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, provisional
certification of the class for settlement purposes only, and
issuance of notice to settlement class members. The court held a
hearing on July 20, 2016 and approved the settlement."

On September 26, 2016, the court entered final judgment in the
action. The time to appeal the entry of this judgment expired on
October 26, 2016. As a result of the approved settlement, all
coverage available to Genworth under its 2014 executive and
organizational liability insurance program was exhausted.
Therefore, Genworth says, it does not have coverage under the
program to pay any future settlements or judgments in relation to
litigation brought during the 2014 policy year, including the City
of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial,
Inc., et al.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an
initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was
completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings
completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which
Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new
public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding
company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in
connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth
Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization.
Genworth Financial has five operating business segments:  U.S.
Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage
Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the purported
class action lawsuit filed by the Estate of Helen F. Walsh was
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.

In a complaint filed in July 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc.,
Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Genworth Life
Insurance Company of New York and Genworth Life Insurance Company
were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Estate of
Helen F. Walsh, Deceased v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint alleged breach of contract
involving optional inflation increase benefit riders on certain
long-term care insurance policies and sought unspecified actual
damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the
action to Connecticut and a motion to dismiss the action. Pursuant
to stipulation, on October 14, 2016, the court ordered the matter
dismissed without prejudice.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an
initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was
completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings
completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which
Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new
public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding
company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in
connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth
Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization.
Genworth Financial has five operating business segments:  U.S.
Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage
Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff.


HERC HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motions to dismiss filed in the lawsuit captioned In
re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to
the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
the Company (under its former Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. name)
and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that the
Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in its public disclosures during the period from
February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014,
the Company responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion
to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was
without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged
to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that
were not substantively very different than the allegations in the
prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new
federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and the Company
responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion
to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff
could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The
third amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the
Company filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made
by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the
standing of the first plaintiff.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended
complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was
filed on March 1, 2016. The Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to
same on May 6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the Company and the
individual defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their
motions to dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed.

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

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and New Hertz, which is responsible for managing this matter, has
informed the Company that it intends to vigorously defend against
the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and
the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It
is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to the
Company. However, the Company is currently unable to estimate the
range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the
Company's consolidated and combined financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Herc Holdings Inc. is among the largest equipment rental companies
in North America.  The Company conducts substantially all of its
operations through subsidiaries, including Herc Rentals Inc.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Awaits Appellate Decision in "Sobel" Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., awaits decision on its subsidiary's
appeal from a final judgment entered in the lawsuit commenced by
Janet Sobel, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they
have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on
behalf of all persons who rented vehicles from Hertz at airports
in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery
fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class
period. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against
the Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42
million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,
and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1
million to be paid from the restitution fund.

In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed
by the parties. Oral argument was set for December 12, 2016 in San
Francisco.

The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not
be material to its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2015
to serve as the top-level holding company for Rental Car
Intermediate Holdings, LLC which wholly owns The Hertz
Corporation, Hertz Global's primary operating company.  Hertz was
incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and is a successor to
corporations that have been engaged in the vehicle rental and
leasing business since 1918.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss in Securities Suit Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motions to dismiss filed in the matter styled In
re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation remain
pending, according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s November 8,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Old Hertz
Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Old
Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was
without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged
to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that
were not substantively very different than the allegations in the
prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to
the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss.
On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a
third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The
third amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz
Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was
made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to
the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs
leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff,
and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Old Hertz
Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24,
2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May 6, 2016.
On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants
filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss.
The matter is now fully briefed.

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

New Hertz and Herc Holdings are each responsible for a portion of
the matter and Hertz Global will be responsible for managing the
settlement or other disposition of the matter. Hertz Global
believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends
to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is
subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is
not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter
could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Global. However, the Company
is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible
losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any
particular reporting period.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2015
to serve as the top-level holding company for Rental Car
Intermediate Holdings, LLC which wholly owns The Hertz
Corporation, Hertz Global's primary operating company.  Hertz was
incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and is a successor to
corporations that have been engaged in the vehicle rental and
leasing business since 1918.


HORTONWORKS INC: Defends "Monachelli" Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hortonworks, Inc., continues to defend itself against a putative
class action lawsuit in California alleging violations of
securities laws, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On February 29, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00980-SI. The
lawsuit names as defendants the Company, Robert G. Bearden, and
Scott J. Davidson. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and operations. On June 1, 2016,
the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On July 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking to represent a class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hortonworks'
securities between August 5, 2015 and January 15, 2016, inclusive.
Plaintiffs seek 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.

Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that
the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

Hortonworks, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2011 and is an
industry leading innovator that creates, distributes and supports
enterprise-ready open data platforms and modern data applications
that deliver actionable intelligence from all data: data-in-motion
and data-at-rest.  The Company's Open Enterprise Hadoop solutions
include the Hortonworks Data Platform, powered by Apache(TM)
Hadoop(R), and the Hortonworks DataFlow Platform, powered by
Apache NiFi.


INNERWORKINGS INC: "Van Noppen" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities lawsuit titled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings, Inc.,
et al., was dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's
November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of
its intention to restate certain historical financial statements,
an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual
defendants dispute the claims.

On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On
September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice
of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative.

On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. The settlement provides for payment to
the class of $6.0 million, including plaintiff's attorneys' fees,
in exchange for a full and final release, and includes a denial of
liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual
defendants. The settlement payment will be fully paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.

On November 2, 2016, the Court issued an order approving the
settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice.

InnerWorkings, Inc. was incorporated in the state of Delaware on
January 3, 2006.  The Company is a global marketing execution firm
for the world's most marketing intensive companies, including
those in the Fortune 1000, across a wide range of industries. As a
comprehensive outsourced enterprise solution, the Company
leverages proprietary technology, an extensive supplier network
and deep domain expertise to streamline the creation, production,
and distribution of marketing and promotional materials, signage
and displays, retail experiences, events and promotions, and
packaging across every major market worldwide.


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: To Settle 3 Suits Over Celator Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc awaits the execution of a stipulation of
settlement to resolve three putative class action lawsuits
challenging its acquisition of Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.

On July 12, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of Celator
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The aggregate consideration for the Celator
Acquisition was approximately $1.5 billion.

On June 21, 2016, a putative class-action lawsuit challenging the
Celator Acquisition, captioned Dunbar v. Celator Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., or the Dunbar action, was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey. The complaint was filed against Celator, each member of
the Celator board of directors, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and its
wholly owned subsidiary Plex Merger Sub, Inc., or Plex. The
complaint generally alleges that the Celator directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Celator Acquisition,
and that Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and Plex aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also generally
asserts that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Celator's public stockholders by, among other things, (i)
agreeing to sell Celator to the Company at an inadequate price,
(ii) implementing an unfair process, (iii) agreeing to certain
provisions of the merger agreement for the Celator Acquisition
that allegedly favored the Company and deterred alternative bids,
and (iv) failing to disclose purportedly material information in
Celator's Schedule 14D-9 filing with the SEC. The plaintiff
sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation
of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses,
including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees.

Between June 27, 2016 and June 29, 2016, two putative class-action
lawsuits challenging the Celator Acquisition, captioned
Palmisciano v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Palmisciano
action, and Barreto v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Barreto action, were filed in the District Court. The complaints
were filed against Celator and each member of the Celator board of
directors. The complaints assert causes of action under sections
14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
the Exchange Act, predicated on Celator's and the Celator
directors' alleged failure to disclose purportedly material
information in Celator's Schedule 14D-9 filing with the SEC. The
plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and
expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees. Neither Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc nor Plex were
named defendants in these actions.

On July 6, 2016, the defendants to the Dunbar action, the
Palmisciano action and the Barreto action entered into a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of these actions.
The memorandum of understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in these actions. In consideration for
such settlement and release, the parties to these actions agreed,
among other things, that Celator would amend its Schedule 14D-9 to
include certain supplemental disclosures. The Schedule 14D-9 was
amended by Celator on July 6, 2016, and the Celator Acquisition
was completed on July 12, 2016. The settlement remains subject to,
among other items, confirmatory discovery, the execution of a
stipulation of settlement by the parties, final approval of the
settlement by the District Court in the Barreto action and
dismissal with prejudice of the Dunbar action and the Palmisciano
action.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is an international biopharmaceutical
company focused on improving patients' lives by identifying,
developing and commercializing meaningful products that address
unmet medical needs.  The Company has a diverse portfolio of
products and product candidates, with a focus in the areas of
sleep and hematology/oncology.  The Company's lead marketed
products are Xyrem(R) (sodium oxybate) oral solution; Erwinaze(R)
(asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi), a treatment for patients with
acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and Defitelio(R) (defibrotide
sodium), a product for the treatment of adult and pediatric
patients with hepatic veno-occlusive disease.


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Cochran Appeals Ruling in "Russell" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Barbara S. Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Steven Russell, et al. v. Kohl's Department
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01143-RGK-SP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Russell, et al. v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56764, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Other objectors have also filed appeals from court rulings in the
"Russell" Case.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is
brought against the Defendant for falsely advertising original
prices, regular prices, and price discounts for its apparel and
other merchandise, in its direct marketing to consumers via in-
store advertising displays, print advertising, and Internet.

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. owns and operates a chain retail
clothing stores throughout the United States.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on March 6, 2017;

   -- Appellant Barbara S. Cochran's opening brief is due on
      April 17, 2017;

   -- Appellees Donna Caffey, Does, Kohl's Department Stores,
      Inc. and Steven Russell's answering brief is due on May 17,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and DONNA CAFFEY are represented
by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          11845 W.Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          77305 California Drive
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

Defendant-Appellee KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
          Ryan W. Light, Esq.
          James Speyer, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: alex_beroukhim@aporter.com
                  ryan.light@aporter.com
                  james.speyer@aporter.com


LIBERTY MEDIA: Awaits Final OK of Sirius XM's $35-Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation awaits final approval of the $35 million
settlement its subsidiary, Sirius XM Holdings Inc., entered into
to resolve lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

SIRIUS XM is a defendant in several purported class action suits
that allege that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on its
behalf, made calls which violate provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  The plaintiffs in
these actions allege, among other things, that SIRIUS XM called
mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without
the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer
revoked his or her prior consent.  In one of the actions, the
plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's call
time restrictions and in one of the other actions the plaintiff
also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's do not call
restrictions. These purported class action cases are titled Erik
Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D.
Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3
(E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Career
Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker
v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla).

SIRIUS XM has entered into an agreement to settle these purported
class action suits. The settlement is expected to resolve the
claims of consumers beginning in February 2008 relating to
telemarketing calls to their mobile telephones. As part of this
settlement, SIRIUS XM made a $35 million payment to a settlement
fund (from which notice, administration and other costs and
attorneys' fees will be paid), are offering participating class
members the option of receiving three months of SIRIUS XM's Select
service for no charge, and will enter into agreements to make
modifications to the practices of certain call center vendors.
The settlement is subject to final court approval, which cannot be
assured.

Liberty Media Corporation, through its ownership of interests in
subsidiaries and other companies, is primarily engaged in the
media, communications and entertainment industries primarily in
North America. The significant subsidiaries include Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. and Braves Holdings, LLC.  The Company's significant
investment accounted for under the equity method is Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc.


LIPOCINE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Combine Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. awaits ruling to determine the lead plaintiff in,
and to consolidate, various lawsuits filed by shareholders, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016.

On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This initial
action was followed by additional lawsuits also filed in the
District of New Jersey. The lawsuits contain substantially
identical allegations and allege that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
Company's filing of the NDA for LPCN 1021 to the FDA contained
deficiencies and as a result the defendants' statements about the
Company's business and operations were false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis in violation of federal securities laws.
The lawsuits seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims in the lawsuits are
without merit and will defend against them vigorously. We maintain
insurance for claims of this nature, which management believes is
adequate. Moreover, we believe, based on information currently
available, that the filing and ultimate outcome of the lawsuits
will not have a material impact on our financial position,
although we will have to pay the insurance retention amount in
connection with the lawsuit. A hearing was held on October 3, 2016
to determine the lead plaintiff and to consolidate the various
filed lawsuits."

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying its oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.


MDL 02295: Has Paid $18 Million to Settle TCPA Suits
----------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc., has paid $18 million to resolve a multidistrict
litigation alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On
December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14,
2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following
the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June
10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court
lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May
20, 2014.

In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
principle ("the Settlement Agreement") under which the parties
agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the
proposed settlement. As required by the Settlement Agreement,
which remains subject to final court approval, the parties sought
preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the
Company paid $18 million to resolve the MDL action during the
second quarter of 2016. The Company had fully accrued for the
settlement amount as of December 31, 2015.

PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a financial and
business service company operating in the Americas and Europe.
The Company's primary business is the purchase, collection and
management of portfolios of nonperforming loans. The Company also
services receivables on behalf of clients, provides business tax
revenue administration, audit, discovery and recovery services for
state and local governments in the United States, and provides
class action claims settlement recovery services and related
payment processing to corporate clients.


NASDAQ INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that the Plaintiff's appeal from the
dismissal of the lawsuit captioned Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC,
et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), remains pending.

The Company said: "we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551
(E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court
entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on May 18, 2016.  Given that the complaint was
dismissed at the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we are
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded)
that the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the
dismissal on appeal vigorously."

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

Nasdaq, Inc., is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange
technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public
company services across six continents.  The Company's global
offerings are diverse and include trading and clearing across
multiple asset classes, trade management services, data products,
financial indexes, capital formation solutions, corporate
solutions and market technology products and services.


NASDAQ INC: Awaits 2nd Circuit's Action in "Lanier" Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has not
taken any action, as of October 26, 2016, on a petition for panel
or en banc rehearing in one of the "Lanier" cases' appeal,
according to Nasdaq, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "we were named as one of many exchange
defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745
(S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865
(S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866
(S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and
the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On
behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided
by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches. On September 29,
2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints."

"On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing
the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that
they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not
state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff appealed the
judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit."

"On September 23, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion
affirming the district court's dismissal of all three complaints,
concluding that many of plaintiff's claims were preempted, that
plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, and
that, insofar as plaintiff alleged that the exchanges'
implementation or operation of the NMS Plans violates the Exchange
Act, plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies
before the SEC. Plaintiff filed a petition for panel or en banc
rehearing before the Second Circuit on October 7, 2016, in one of
the three appeals."

"As of October 26, 2016, the Second Circuit has not taken any
action on the petition. Given the preliminary nature of the
proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have
been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability
may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the
district court and the Second Circuit concluded) that the claims
are without merit and intend to continue to litigate vigorously if
the petition for rehearing is granted."

Nasdaq, Inc., is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange
technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public
company services across six continents.  The Company's global
offerings are diverse and include trading and clearing across
multiple asset classes, trade management services, data products,
financial indexes, capital formation solutions, corporate
solutions and market technology products and services.


NASDAQ INC: Awaits SEC's Views Over Issues in Providence Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that it is awaiting comments from the
Securities and Exchange Commission on whether the District Court
had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case filed by the City of
Providence.

The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City
of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class
of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-
frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names
the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations.
We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 23, 2015."

"On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order
dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were
foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the
plaintiffs failed to state any claim. The plaintiffs have appealed
the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on
August 24, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an
order requesting the SEC's views on whether the district court had
subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and whether the
defendants are immune from suit regarding the challenged conduct."

"Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly
the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the
claims are without merit and will continue to litigate
vigorously."

Nasdaq, Inc., is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange
technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public
company services across six continents.  The Company's global
offerings are diverse and include trading and clearing across
multiple asset classes, trade management services, data products,
financial indexes, capital formation solutions, corporate
solutions and market technology products and services.


NAVIENT STUDENT: BlackRock Suit Parties May Pursue Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a lawsuit filed by the BlackRock plaintiffs are
currently permitted to promulgate discovery, Navient Student Loan
Trust 2014-1 said in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution
period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court
action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in
the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to
513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an
additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three causes
of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and
breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other
current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended
complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not
include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action.
On September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the
demurrer and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA.  On October 3,
2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their
demurrer and motion to strike.  On October 18, 2016, the court
granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with
thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion
to strike.

The parties are currently permitted to promulgate discovery,
subject to deadlines set forth in a case management order entered
on October 17, 2016.


NAVIENT STUDENT: Discovery in Royal Park Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit initiated by Royal Park
Investments SA/NV in New York, according to Navient Student Loan
Trust 2014-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution
period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016.

On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and
derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten
residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts against
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for alleged
violations of the TIA, breach of contract and breach of trust
based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee
for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges that the total
realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1
billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February
3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in part
plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim and
its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016
DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal
Park filed a motion for class certification.

On September 23, 2016, DBNTC filed an opposition to Royal Park's
motion for class certification.  Discovery is ongoing.


NAVIENT STUDENT: Lord Abbett Files Amended Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Abbett Funds, the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action against Navient Corporation, et al., filed an
amended and consolidated complaint, according to Navient Student
Loan Trust 2014-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution
period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in several putative
securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases,
which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed
February 11, 2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al.
(filed February 16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
of Chicago v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 26,
2016). On April 11, 2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to
Appoint Lead Counsel in the lawsuits. On June 30, 2016, the Court
consolidated the three pending cases and appointed Lord Abbett
Funds as Lead Plaintiff.

On September 28, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff filed their Amended and
Consolidated Complaint.

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


NEW JERSEY, USA: Aruanno Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in "Alves" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Aruanno filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit styled Raymond Alves, et al. v. Merrill
Main, et al., Case No. 2-01-cv-00789, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Joseph
Aruanno, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, previously
petitioned for a writ of mandamus in connection with the District
Court's alleged failure to rule on his pending motion to reopen
Bagarozy, et al. v. Harris, et al., D.N.J. No. 04-cv-03066.  Mr.
Aruanno, who is civilly committed under the New Jersey Sexually
Violent Predator Act to the Special Treatment Unit Annex in
Avenel, New Jersey, is a plaintiff in a consolidated class action
alleging inadequate therapeutic treatment and punitive conditions
of confinement in New Jersey's STU facilities.  The litigation
began in 2001, with the filing of the "Alves" Case.

The appellate case is captioned as Raymond Alves, et al. v.
Merrill Main, et al., Case No. 16-4171, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND ALVES, MICHAEL CULBRETH and DERRICK
SESSOMS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jennifer B. Condon, Esq.
          SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          833 McCarter Highway
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 642-8700
          E-mail: jenny-brooke.condon@shu.edu

               - and -

          Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4731
          Facsimile: (973) 639-6285
          E-mail: llustberg@gibbonslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MERRILL MAIN, Ph.D., in his official capacity
as Clinical Director of the Special Treatment Unit; COMMISSIONER
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; LYNN A. KOVICH, in her
official capacity as Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Director of
the New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services;
and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY are represented by:

          David L. DaCosta, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
          Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
          25 Market Street
          Trenton, NJ 08625
          Telephone: (609) 341-3689
          E-mail: dacosdav@dol.lps.state.nj.us


NEWLINK GENETICS: "Abramson" Suit Lead Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs in the putative class action initiated by
Trevor Abramson filed an amended complaint alleging violations of
securities laws, NewLink Genetics Corporation said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court, against
the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J.
Link, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer John B. Henneman
III, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer Gordon H.
Link, Jr., captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al.,
Case 1:16-cv-3545, or the Action.  On August 16, 2016, the Court
appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved
their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the
Action.

On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order providing that (i)
the lead plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before
October 31, 2016, (ii) the defendants shall submit a letter to the
Court regarding a potential motion responsive to the amended
complaint on November 15, 2016, and (iii) the lead plaintiffs
shall submit a letter to the Court opposing the defendants' letter
on November 22, 2016.  On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint which asserts claims under the federal
securities laws against the Company, Charles J. Link, Jr., and the
Company's Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian,
or collectively, the Defendants (no claims are asserted in the
amended complaint against Messrs. Henneman or Gordon Link).  The
amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the
Phase II and III trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged
damages in the amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's stock during the putative class period of September
17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated
prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company disputes the claims in the Action and intends to
defend against them vigorously.

NewLink Genetics Corporation was incorporated as a Delaware
corporation and was formed for the purpose of developing
treatments for patients with cancer and other diseases.  The
Company is a clinical stage immuno-oncology company focused on
discovering and developing novel immunotherapeutic products for
the treatment of cancer with an expertise in infectious diseases
that drives specific opportunities.  The Company's portfolio
includes small-molecule and biologic immuno-oncology product
candidates intended to treat a wide range of oncology indications.


NEWS CORP: "Wilder" Stockholders Class Suit Has Been Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lawsuit titled
Wilder v. News Corp., et al., has been closed.

A purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp.,
et al. was previously filed against 21st Century Fox, Rupert
Murdoch, James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Les Hinton and the
Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK
& Ireland Limited) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of 21st Century
Fox's common stock between July 8, 2009 and July 18, 2011 for
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that false and
misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of
voicemail interception at The News of the World and seeking
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs.
On September 30, 2015, the District Court dismissed all of
plaintiffs' claims and on September 21, 2016, the District Court
denied plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. On October 21, 2016,
plaintiffs' time to appeal the District Court's decision expired,
and the case was closed.

News Corporation is a global diversified media and information
services company comprised of businesses across a range of media,
including: news and information services, book publishing, digital
real estate services, cable network programming in Australia and
pay-TV distribution in Australia.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Douvris' Motion for Joinder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc., awaits ruling on George Douvris, et
al.'s motion for joinder of HELCO as an additional defendant, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016.

On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael
Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting
for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the
Third Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii' seeking certification
of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory
interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants. The
complaint purports that injury and other damages in an undisclosed
amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an alleged
toxic release by Puna Geothermal Venture in the wake of Hurricane
Iselle in August 2014. On August 25, 2016, the Company filed to
remove the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii.

On September 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for joinder of
HELCO as an additional defendant, to amend the complaint, and to
remand the case back to the Third Circuit Court. The plaintiffs'
motion will be heard before the federal court in mid-November,
2016.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Ormat Technologies, Inc., is a vertically integrated company,
engaged in the geothermal and recovered energy power business.
The Company designs, develops, builds, sells, owns, and operates
clean, environmentally friendly geothermal and recovered energy-
based power plants, usually using equipment that the Company
designs and manufactures.


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Oregon Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation is awaiting approval of a
settlement resolving lawsuits pending in Oregon, according to the
Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class
Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money
with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively,
"Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company,
Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class
Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently
asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack"
W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth,
P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that the
Bank is jointly and severally liable for materially aiding or
participating in Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the
Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the return of the money
placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus
interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The current version of
the complaint seeks $100 million in damages from all defendants.

On August 28, 2014, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for
Berjac of Oregon filed an adversary complaint (Trustee's Lawsuit)
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon alleging
that the Company, the Bank, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and Summit
Bank provided lines of credit that enabled continuation of the
alleged Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of Oregon and the two
partners of the pre-existing Berjac general partnerships, Michael
Holcomb and Gary Holcomb. The Company acquired Century Bank on
February 1, 2013. The Trustee's Lawsuit was transferred from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon (Eugene Division), where it is currently pending.

In addition to seeking an award of punitive damages, the trustee
is asserting fraudulent transfer law and unjust enrichment in an
effort to recover payments made by Berjac to Century Bank and the
Bank. Among other claims for relief, the trustee is seeking the
disgorgement of monies advanced to the Holcomb Family Limited
Partnership by Century Bank and returned to the estate by court
order following the post-petition cash collateral hearing, and of
monies received by the Bank from the proceeds of the sale of stock
held by the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership and securing one of
the lines of credit previously held by Century Bank. The trustee
also asserts a claim for alleged aiding and abetting of breaches
of duties owed to Berjac. The complaint in the Trustee's Lawsuit
indicates the range of damages sought by the trustee which
include, among other claims for relief, an award of punitive
damages not to exceed $10 million, recovery of payments associated
with allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling up to approximately
$55.3 million, including up to $20.7 million from Century Bank and
up to $7.7 million from the Bank. This case is not currently set
for trial.

On November 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court judge stayed all
deadlines in the Trustee's Lawsuit and all parties were ordered to
participate in a judicial settlement conference. The judicial
settlement conference sessions were held on February 18, 2016 and
April 20, 2016. At the April 20, 2016, settlement conference, the
Bank reached a tentative settlement of the Class Action and the
Trustee's Lawsuit. The settlement of the Class Action will require
approval of the Circuit Court judge.

The Company says the settlement is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.

Pacific Continental Corporation is a bank holding company that
wholly owns Pacific Continental Bank.  The Bank's wholly owned
subsidiaries include PCB Services Corporation and PCB Loan
Services Corporation.


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Agrees to Settle "Wilder" Suit for $2.3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company indicated its non-binding agreement
to settle the lawsuit styled Wilder, et al. v. Roma Food
Enterprises, Inc., et al., on the basis of a settlement fund of
$2.3 million, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 1, 2016.

The Company said: "In October 2014, three former delivery drivers
who worked in our former Roma of New Jersey warehouse in
Piscataway, New Jersey filed a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County
against us. The lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of
delivery drivers who worked in our Roma, broadline and Vistar
facilities in New Jersey from October 2012 to the present that,
under New Jersey state law, we failed to pay minimum wages and
overtime compensation to the delivery drivers in these facilities.
The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) award of unpaid
minimum wages and overtime under New Jersey state law; (2) an
injunction preventing us from committing the alleged violation;
(3) a declaration from the court that the alleged violations were
knowing and willful; (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
(5) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The case is in the
preliminary phases of discovery, and no class has been certified.
The plaintiffs have expressed their desire to include temporary
delivery drivers in the alleged class; however, the court has not
ruled as to whether those temporary workers may join the lawsuit."

"On October 4, 2016, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiffs,
and on October 25, 2016, we indicated our non-binding agreement to
settle the lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $2.3
million, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement
agreement and receipt of court approval of that agreement. As of
October 1, 2016 the Company accrued $2.3 million for this
settlement.

Performance Food Group Company, through its subsidiaries, markets
and distributes national and company-branded food and food-related
products to customer locations across the United States.  The
Company serves both of the major customer types in the restaurant
industry: (i) independent, or "Street" customers, and (ii) multi-
unit, or "Chain" customers, which include regional and national
family and casual dining restaurant chains, fast casual chains,
and quick-service restaurants. The Company also serves schools,
healthcare facilities, business and industry locations, and other
institutional customers.


PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Defends Suits Arising From Line 901 Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is defending against lawsuits arising
from the Line 901 incident, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In May 2015, the Company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the
Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert.
Following the release, the Company shut down the pipeline and
initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which
includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California
Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara
Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response
effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to
impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the
Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline
monitoring. The Company's current "worst case" estimate of the
amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that
the Company believed could have been spilled based on relevant
facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels.

The Company said, "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we
established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were
damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage
claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims
line and we are processing those claims for payment as we receive
them. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against us, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. In general,
the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of
claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release,
including potential classes such as persons that derive a
significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and
harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara
County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources
from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic
downtown Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or
beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other
classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted
by the release. We are also defending a separate class action
lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901
and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages."

Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership formed
on July 17, 2013, to own an interest in the general partner and
incentive distribution rights of Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership.


PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Line 901 Spill Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities lawsuit arising from the Line 901
incident remains pending, according to Plains GP Holdings, L.P.'s
November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

In May 2015, the Company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the
Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert.
Following the release, the Company shut down the pipeline and
initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which
includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California
Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara
Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response
effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to
impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the
Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline
monitoring. The Company's current "worst case" estimate of the
amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that
the Company believed could have been spilled based on relevant
facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels.

There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. ("PAA") and/or PAGP Plains GP Holdings,
L.P. ("PAGP") against PAA, PAGP and/or certain of their respective
officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have
been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general,
these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated
securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of
PAA's pipelines and related facilities through false and
misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing
of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified
damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments
in PAA and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts
of the defendants.

The Company said: "PAA and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny
the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond
accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our
governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable,
insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense
costs of our officers and directors in connection with these
lawsuits; we are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs
of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting
agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters."

Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership formed
on July 17, 2013, to own an interest in the general partner and
incentive distribution rights of Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership.


PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Suit Over Pocahontas Pump Release Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed in connection with the Pocahontas
Pump crude oil release has been voluntarily dismissed, Plains GP
Holdings, L.P., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On July 10, 2015, we experienced a crude oil
release of approximately 100 barrels at our Pocahontas Pump
Station near the border of Bond and Madison Counties in Illinois,
approximately 40 miles from St. Louis, Missouri. The Pocahontas
Station is part of the Capwood pipeline that runs from our Patoka
Station to Wood River, Illinois. A portion of the released crude
oil was contained within our Pocahontas facility, but some of the
released crude oil entered a nearby waterway where it was
contained with booms. On July 14, 2015, PHMSA issued a corrective
action order requiring us to take various actions in response to
the release, including remediation, reporting and other actions.
As of December 18, 2015, we had submitted all requested
information and reports required by the corrective action order
and are currently awaiting PHMSA's comment or approval."

"On August 10, 2015, we received a Notice of Violation from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency") alleging
violations relating to the release and outlining the activities
recommended by the Agency to resolve the alleged violations,
including the completion of an investigation and various
remediation activities. The Agency approved a work plan describing
remediation activities proposed for remaining hydrocarbons at
Pocahontas Station and affected waterways. Remediation activities
under this work plan have effectively been completed, and on
December 17, 2015, we entered into a Compliance Commitment
Agreement with the Agency, which provides the framework for final
completion and documentation of the remediation effort. On April
15, 2016, the Agency confirmed that all of the activities required
by the Compliance Commitment Agreement had been completed and that
the violations associated with the incident had been resolved. To
date, no fines or penalties have been assessed in this matter;
however, it remains possible that fines and penalties could be
assessed in the future."

"In connection with this incident, we have also had one class
action lawsuit filed against us in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which was
subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. We estimate
that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with
respect to this release will be less than $10 million."

Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership formed
on July 17, 2013, to own an interest in the general partner and
incentive distribution rights of Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership.


POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Appeal in "Kwasnik" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Powercomm Construction, Inc., and David Kwasnik, Sr.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Gregory Randolph v. Powercomm Construction, Inc., Case No. 8:13-
cv-01696-GJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Greenbelt.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Gregory Randolph v. Powercomm
Construction, Inc., Case No. 16-2370, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee GREGORY RANDOLPH, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Scott Oswald, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC
          888 17th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 261-2803
          E-mail: soswald@employmentlawgroup.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees GREGORY RANDOLPH, DANA BROWN, TWANDA
BANISTER, GREGORY EUBANKS, ARTHUR HINNANT, EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY,
RHASAAN DARK, RODNEY WILLIAMS, KENNETH JACKSON, GEORGE MILES,
JAMAL DREW, KENNETH SEARLES, DEXTER ANDERSON, BERNARD BROWN,
NATESHIA DECHE BEASLEY, EUNICE MELTON, ROBIN MELTON, EARNEST LEE
ALLEN, JR., SHANINA WASHINGTON, MELVIN L. WEBB-BEY, SYLVIOUS
WILLIAMS, FASIL ALEMAYEHU, AMISHA BENNETT, EDWARD ROBINSON,
DANIELLE SMITH, RONALD WALL, ROY BENNETT, MELQUIN GAINO, LESLIE
GROSS, ANTONIO WALL, LAMONT NEWTON, ANTHONY WILLS, LAMARR YOUNG,
MICHELLE BENNETT, RODNEY BROOKS, LARRY JEFFERSON, LENARD PRINGLE,
JUSTIN FOSTER, EDDIE PERKINS, SEAN E. PITTMAN, JIMMIE MISSOURI,
KEVIN SORRELL, TERENCE BROWN, TERRANCE DOVE, ERIC SHEFFEY, TERRELL
TWITTY, JEFF JORDAN, SAMUEL HEGWOOD, JOHNNY BOYKIN, BERNARD
BENNETT, LAVELLE GANT, DONALD RAY JONES, CORNELIUS REDFEARN,
DARNELL MADDOX, RONALD YOUNG, CALVIN GORHAM and WILLIAM HOLLAND
are represented by:

          Nicholas Woodfield, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC
          888 17th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 261-2812
          E-mail: nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellants POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION, INC., and DAVID
KWASNIK, SR., are represented by:

          Robert A. Battey, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Bohn, Esq.
          BOHN & KOURETAS, PLC
          P. O. Box 17811
          Arlington, VA 22216
          Telephone: (703) 599-7076


QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Has Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quotient Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the consolidated
litigation arising from its initial public offering has concluded
since the Defendants did not appeal the final judgment.

On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, the members of its board of directors,
certain of its executive officers and the underwriters of the
Company's IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-
15-544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The
complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act and sought
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class
of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
IPO. Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without
prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint
with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-
CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar.
30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same
allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015). On May 7, 2015, the Santa
Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So and Silverberg actions
with the O'Donnell action. The Court sustained defendants'
demurrer to the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On
December 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the amended
consolidated complaint without leave to amend on May 25, 2016, and
on July 13, 2016 entered final judgment in the Company's favor.

The lawsuit has concluded since the defendants did not appeal the
judgment.

Quotient Technology Inc. is a provider of digital promotions and
media solutions driven by consumer-shopping data.  The Company
connects consumer packaged goods brands and retailers with
shoppers by delivering digital promotions and media to shoppers
through mobile, web and social channels.


REALPAGE INC: E.D. Virginia Refuses to Dismiss "Jenkins" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
denied the motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., according to the Company's
November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "In November 2014, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with
background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This
case has since been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 25,
2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until
the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Spokeo
case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge
in the Jenkins case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the
Spokeo decision."

On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to
dismiss.

The Company says it intends to defend this case vigorously.

RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software-
enabled services for the rental housing and vacation rental
industries.  The Company's broad range of property management
solutions enables owners and managers of a wide variety of single
family, multifamily, and vacation rental property types to enhance
the visibility, control, and profitability of each portion of the
renter life cycle and operation of a property.


REALPAGE INC: Fails to Win Nod to Dismiss "Stokes" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied the motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit
titled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., according to the Company's
November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") in connection with background screens of prospective
tenants of our clients. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an
order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme
Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case
addressed issues related to standing to bring claims related to
the FCRA. On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
opinion in the Spokeo litigation, vacating the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and
remanding the case for further consideration by the U.S. Court of
Appeals. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the
judge in the Stokes case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we
filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based
upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District
Court denied the motion to dismiss."

The Company says it intends to defend this case vigorously.

RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software-
enabled services for the rental housing and vacation rental
industries.  The Company's broad range of property management
solutions enables owners and managers of a wide variety of single
family, multifamily, and vacation rental property types to enhance
the visibility, control, and profitability of each portion of the
renter life cycle and operation of a property.


ROCKET FUEL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Fuel Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two
purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors at the time. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the initial
public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and the
secondary offering on February 5, 2014 (the "Secondary Offering")
were also named as defendants. These actions were consolidated and
a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation,
was filed on February 27, 2015.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the ability of the Company's
technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and
about Rocket Fuel's future prospects. The consolidated complaint
also alleged that the Company's registration statements and
prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained
false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated
complaint purported to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 (the "Exchange Act" claims), and for
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act" claims), on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between September 20, 2013
and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those who purchased
stock in the IPO, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering. The
consolidated complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on
December 23, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the
Securities Act claims and all but one of the statements on which
the Exchange Act claims were based. The court also dismissed all
claims against the outside directors and the underwriters of the
Company's public offerings.

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

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend itself against
this purported class action.

Rocket Fuel Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on
March 25, 2008, and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.
The Company is a provider of artificial-intelligence digital
advertising solutions.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Suit Claims' Processing Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' claims in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re
Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust Litigation are subject
to an ongoing claims administration process in the Bankruptcy
Court, according to SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s November 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and
indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of
reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently
emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

To the extent that allowed claims are properly characterized as
pre-petition general unsecured claims, such claims would be
limited to a portion of the amount of consideration set aside for
such claims under the Plan, which consists of cash, shares of the
Company's common stock and warrants (the "GUC Pool").

On March 3, 2016, Brian Thieme filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against the Company and the Company's former CEO, Tom L.
Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing
on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least
March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress
the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold
interests and properties containing producing oil and natural gas
wells located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and
Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.

On April 15, 2016, the court consolidated the Thieme lawsuit under
the caption "In re Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust
Litigation" with eleven additional subsequently filed lawsuits
alleging similar violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act and
the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act.

The plaintiffs' claims are subject to an ongoing claims
administration process in the Bankruptcy Court. The claims may be
disallowed and receive no recovery under the Plan or, if
subsequently allowed by a final and nonappealable order of the
Bankruptcy Court, may receive only the partial recovery from the
GUC Pool to which general unsecured claims are entitled under the
Plan.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Exploration Unit Faces "West" Suit in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, is facing a putative
class action lawsuit in Oklahoma initiated by Lisa West and Stormy
Hopson, according to SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s November 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and
indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of
reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently
emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their complaint,
plaintiffs assert various tort claims seeking relief for damages
allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for
injury to property and for the purchase of insurance policies
allegedly needed by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for
seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of
wastewater disposal wells.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Gernandt Will Not Recover Anything Under Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the effectiveness of SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s plan of
reorganization, the Plaintiff's claims in the consolidated lawsuit
filed by Barton Gernandt, Jr., et al., will be discharged without
recovery under the Plan, according to the Company's November 8,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and
indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of
reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently
emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

On July 30, 2015, Barton Gernandt, Jr., filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers, and the Company's former directors, among
other defendants, on behalf of participants in, or beneficiaries
of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "401(k) Plan") at
any time between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose 401(k)
Plan accounts included investments in the Company's common stock.
The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the 401(k) Plan
and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the investment of
the 401(k) Plan's assets in the Company's common stock. On
September 10, 2015, the court consolidated the Gernandt lawsuit
with two additional subsequently filed lawsuits alleging similar
ERISA violations, and the plaintiffs subsequently filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

Upon the effectiveness of the Plan, the Company says, the
plaintiffs' claims against the Company were discharged without
recovery under the Plan.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Lanier Trust Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the effectiveness of SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s plan of
reorganization, the Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit initiated by
Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust will be discharged without recovery
under the Plan, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and
indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of
reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently
emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers, and the Company's former directors,
among other defendants, on behalf of certain purchasers of common
units of the Mississippian Trust I and Mississippian Trust II.
Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company
indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with this
lawsuit.

Upon the effectiveness of the Plan, the Company says, the
plaintiff's claims against the Company were discharged without
recovery under the Plan.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Processing of "Peck" Claims Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Mickey Peck's
claims are subject to an ongoing claims administration process in
the Bankruptcy Court.

On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and
indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of
reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently
emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

To the extent that allowed claims are properly characterized as
pre-petition general unsecured claims, such claims would be
limited to a portion of the amount of consideration set aside for
such claims under the Plan, which consists of cash, shares of the
Company's common stock and warrants (the "GUC Pool").

On November 18, 2015, Mickey Peck filed a collective action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and SandRidge Operating
Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff
alleges that the Company improperly classified certain of its
consultants as independent contractors rather than as employees
and, therefore, improperly paid such consultants a day rate
without paying any overtime compensation. On January 14, 2016, the
court entered an order conditionally certifying the class and
providing for notice.

The plaintiffs' claims are subject to an ongoing claims
administration process in the Bankruptcy Court. The claims may be
disallowed and receive no recovery under the Plan or, if
subsequently allowed by a final and nonappealable order of the
Bankruptcy Court, may receive only the partial recovery from the
GUC Pool to which general unsecured claims are entitled under the
Plan.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing
-------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that upon the
effectiveness of its plan of reorganization, the claims of the
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities lawsuit will be discharged
without recovery under the Plan.

On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and
indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of
reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently
emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma asserting federal securities law
claims against the Company and certain current and former officers
of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone filed a
substantially similar class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court
consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation." On July 30, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting federal
securities law claims against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers, and the Company's former directors, among
other defendants, on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock and certain purchasers of common units of the
Mississippian Trust I and the Mississippian Trust II (together
with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts"). On
May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
claims against the Mississippian Trusts and the underwriter
defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed without
prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the
individual defendants.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second consolidated amended
complaint naming as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers. Upon the effectiveness of the Plan,
the plaintiffs' claims against the Company were discharged without
recovery under the Plan.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.


SHRED-IT USA: Kirchner Appeals From E.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kirchner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Michael Kirchner v. Shred-It USA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01437-WBS-EFB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted final approval of the class
settlement in the Case in 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Kirchner v. Shred-It
USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-17210, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 29, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 30, 2017;

   -- Appellant Michael Kirchner's opening brief is due on
      March 9, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees First Advantage Background
      Services Corp. and Shred-It USA, Inc., is due on April 10,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL KIRCHNER, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          Facsimile: (838) 883-4902
          E-mail: Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SHRED-IT USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com

Defendant-Appellee FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP. is
represented by:

          Mark P. Grajski, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: mgrajski@seyfarth.com


SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park vs. Deutsche Bank
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit commenced by Royal Park
Investments SA/NV against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 said in its Form 10-D filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016,
for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September
30, 2016.

On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and
derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in 10
residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts against
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting
claims for alleged violations of the TIA, breach of contract and
breach of trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its
duties as trustee for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges
that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over
U.S. $3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain.

On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in
part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim
and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016
DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal
Park filed a motion for class certification. On September 23,
2016, DBNTC filed an opposition to Royal Park's motion for class
certification. Discovery is ongoing.


SLM STUDENT: Lead Plaintiff Amends Securities Suit vs. Navient
--------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to
September 30, 2016, that the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated
securities against Navient Corporation, et al., has filed an
amended and consolidated complaint.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in several putative
securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases,
which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed
February 11, 2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al.
(filed February 16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
of Chicago v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 26,
2016). On April 11, 2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to
Appoint Lead Counsel in the lawsuits. On June 30, 2016, the Court
consolidated the three pending cases and appointed Lord Abbett
Funds as Lead Plaintiff. On September 28, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff
filed their Amended and Consolidated Complaint.

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


SLM STUDENT: Parties in BlackRock Suit May Promulgate Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit initiated by BlackRock plaintiffs
against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas are currently
permitted to promulgate discovery, according to SLM Student Loan
Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution
period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court
action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in
the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to
513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
with respect to 465 trusts, and included Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company ("DBNTC") as an additional defendant. The amended
complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract;
breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid
conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on
behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates
in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts
at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S.
$75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in
a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On
September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the demurrer
and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA. On October 3, 2016, DBNTC
and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their demurrer and
motion to strike. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and
DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to
amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.

The parties are currently permitted to promulgate discovery,
subject to deadlines set forth in a case management order entered
on October 17, 2016.


STARZ: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Merger With Lions Gate Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starz is defending itself against a consolidated class action
lawsuit challenging its merger with a subsidiary of Lions Gate
Entertainment Corp., according to the Company's November 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, Starz entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., a corporation
organized and existing under the corporate laws of British
Columbia, and Orion Arm Acquisition Inc., a Delaware corporation
and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lions Gate. The Merger
Agreement provides that Merger Sub will merge with and into Starz,
with Starz continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lions Gate.

Between July 19, 2016 and July 29, 2016, six putative class action
complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Freedman v. Malone, et al.,
C.A. No. 12571-VCG; Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v.
Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12584-VCG; The Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12596-VCG; City of
Cambridge Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12598-VCG;
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No.
12599-VCG; and City of Providence v. Starz, et al., C.A. No.
12604-VCG. On August 16, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware entered an order consolidating these six putative
class actions into one consolidated action, In re Starz
Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG.

On August 30, 2016, a seventh putative class action was filed by
purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, Teamsters Local 170 Pension Fund v. Lions Gate
Entertainment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 12705, which was later added
to the consolidated action. The verified consolidated class action
complaint names as defendants Starz; Dr. John C. Malone; Mark H.
Rachesky; Greg Maffei; Robert R. Bennett; Deborah J. Bennett;
Irving L. Azoff; Susan M. Lyne; Christopher P. Albrecht; Daniel E.
Sanchez; Robert S. Wiesenthal; Andrew T. Heller; Jeffrey F.
Sagansky; Charles Y. Tanabe; Hilltop Investments, LLC; Leslie
Malone; The Tracey L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A;
Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. The consolidated complaint alleges
that the Starz Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to obtain adequate consideration for the Merger and
that other defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided
and abetted the board in breaching their fiduciary duties. In two
counts, the consolidated complaint asserts a claim for breaches of
fiduciary duty against Dr. Malone and the Starz Board of
Directors, as well as a claim for aiding and abetting the breaches
of fiduciary duty against Dr. Malone, Robert Bennett, Deborah
Bennett, Hilltop Investments LLC, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L.
Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mark H. Rachesky, Lions
Gate, and Orion Arm. The consolidated class action complaint seeks
damages, rescission of the merger, costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, and other equitable relief. On August 18, 2016,
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for expedited
proceedings; on September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.

On August 9, 2016, an eighth putative class action complaint was
filed by a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for
the City and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone,
et al., 2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the
members of the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr.
Bennett, as well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board
of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the
holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the
merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement,
and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 7, 2016,
the Colorado court entered an order granting a joint motion for
extension of time to respond to the complaint by and including
November 9, 2016.

Defendants believe that the complaints are without merit and
intend to defend the actions vigorously.

Starz is an integrated global media and entertainment company.
The Company provides premium subscription video programming in the
U.S. to cable operators, satellite television providers,
telecommunications companies and online video providers, and to
OTT subscribers via the Starz app.  The Company also develops,
produces and acquires entertainment content and distributes this
content to consumers in the U.S. and throughout the world.


TEXAS, USA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dunsmore" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Dunsmore filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Richard Dunsmore v. TDCJ C.T. Terrell Unit, et al.,
Case No. 3:16-CV-93, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Galveston.

Plaintiff-Appellant RICHARD A. DUNSMORE, Individually and Drawing
Attention to Similarly Situated Victimized Persons/Privity
Parties, is incarcerated at the CID C.T. Terrell Prison, located
at 1300 FM 655, in Rosharon, Texas.  In his lawsuit, he asserts
violations of prisoner civil rights.

The Defendants-Appellees are TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
C.T. TERRELL UNIT, MICHAEL BUTCHER, STATE OF TEXAS and BYRON
GRANT.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Dunsmore v. TDCJ C.T.
Terrell Unit, et al., Case No. 16-41596, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Initial case check by Attorney Advisor is complete, and
      case is OK to process;

   -- Initial AA Check Due is satisfied; and

   -- Awaiting DC Action (IFPPDC) is due on December 15, 2016.


VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from an order granting Vivint Solar, Inc.'s
motion to compel arbitration remains pending, according to the
Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On September 9, 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to
Section 1689 of the California Civil Code. The complaint seeks:
(1) rescission of their power purchase agreements along with
restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief. On October 16, 2015, the Company moved to
compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the
provisions set forth in the power purchase agreements, which the
Court granted and dismissed the class claims without prejudice.
Plaintiffs have appealed the Court's order.

The Company says it is not possible to estimate the amount or
range of potential loss, if any, at this time.

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

Vivint Solar, Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on
August 12, 2011.  The Company primarily offers solar energy to
residential customers through long-term customer contracts, such
as power purchase agreements and solar energy system leases. The
Company also offers customers the option to purchase solar energy
systems.


VIVINT SOLAR: Awaits Appellate Decision on "Hyatt" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc., awaits ruling on an appeal from the dismissal
of a consolidated securities lawsuit in New York, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015. On May 6,
2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on
December 10, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

On January 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 25, 2016, the Court of
Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal.

The Company says it is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any,
that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If
an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible
that the impact could be material to the Company's results of
operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable.

Vivint Solar, Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on
August 12, 2011.  The Company primarily offers solar energy to
residential customers through long-term customer contracts, such
as power purchase agreements and solar energy system leases. The
Company also offers customers the option to purchase solar energy
systems.


VIVINT SOLAR: Has Paid $1.7-Mil. in Calif. Suit Settlement Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it paid the $1.7
million gross settlement fund to the settlement claim
administrator as agreed by the parties in a class action lawsuit
in California.

In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the
Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a
complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among
other things, alleged improper classification of installer
technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and
electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to provide wages on termination. In December 2014, the original
plaintiffs and three additional plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint with essentially the same allegations.

On November 5, 2015, the parties agreed to preliminary terms of a
settlement of all claims related to allegations in the complaint
in return for the Company's payment of $1.7 million to be paid out
to the purported class members, which was accrued at that time.
The Court gave final approval to the settlement on September 30,
2016. On October 7, 2016, the Company made payment of the $1.7
million gross settlement fund to the settlement claim
administrator.

Vivint Solar, Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on
August 12, 2011.  The Company primarily offers solar energy to
residential customers through long-term customer contracts, such
as power purchase agreements and solar energy system leases. The
Company also offers customers the option to purchase solar energy
systems.


WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Zouzout" Consumer Class Action Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by
Naomi Zouzout alleging violations of various Canadian consumer
protection statutes, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In September 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the province of
Quebec (Naomi Zouzout v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. PQ 500-06-000809-
166) by an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals alleging violations of
various Canadian consumer protection statutes. Among other
remedies, this lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive money
damages, costs, and various fees. The Company intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously. At this time, based on available
information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to
reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine
an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

Wayfair Inc. is an e-commerce business offering visually inspiring
browsing, compelling merchandising, easy product discovery and
attractive prices for over seven million products from over 7,000
suppliers across five distinct brands -- Wayfair, Joss & Main,
AllModern, DwellStudio, and Birch Lane.


WEX INC: Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit filed in Missouri alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains
pending, WEX Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

On August 11, 2016, the Company was sued in the Circuit Court of
St. Charles County, Missouri, in a putative class action alleging
the Company improperly sent unauthorized facsimile advertisements
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 (the "TCPA"). The named plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class of recipients of unauthorized facsimile
advertisements from the Company (collectively, the "Plaintiffs")
and requests statutory damages for each facsimile advertisement.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the opt-out notice of the faxes
did not meet the criteria set forth in the TCPA or its underlying
regulations. The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on September
15, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an answer denying
liability and stating the facsimile advertisement at issue was
sent by FleetOne, LLC, Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

The Company says it is currently conducting an internal review of
this matter and intends to vigorously defend itself. The current
estimate of a reasonably possible loss contingency is not material
to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations, cash flows or liquidity.

WEX Inc. is a provider of corporate card payment solutions.  The
Company currently operates in three business segments: Fleet
Solutions, Travel and Corporate Solutions, and Health and Employee
Benefit Solutions.


XPO LOGISTICS: Contractors Suits vs. Units Still in Initial Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuits brought by independent
contractors of XPO Logistics, Inc.'s intermodal drayage
subsidiaries are currently in the initial pleading stage,
according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.

There are other putative class action litigation matters pending
against the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries in which the
plaintiffs claim they should have been classified as employees,
rather than independent contractors, and seek damages for alleged
violations of various California wage and hour laws. The
particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims
generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses. These cases include the
following matters filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, Los Angeles District: C. Arevalo v. XPO Port Services,
Inc. filed in August 2015; H. Lopez v. PDS Transportation filed in
January 2016; M. Cortez v. Pacer filed in June 2016; and the
following case filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California: I. Hernandez v. Pacer filed in May 2016.
Certain of these potential claimants also may have Pending DLSE
Claims, and may be subject to binding arbitration obligations.
These matters are in the initial pleading stage and the courts
have not yet determined whether to certify the matters as a class
action.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to these claims. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network
of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage
their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains.  The
Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and
small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent
companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: Defends Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc., continues to defend certain of its last mile
logistics subsidiaries against lawsuits alleging misclassification
of employees, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
party to several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers contracted with these subsidiaries
in which the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The
particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims
generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses. Putative class actions
against the Company's subsidiaries are pending in California
(Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005,
currently in the Federal District Court, Southern District of
California; Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren,
Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in
March 2016 in the Federal District Court, Northern District of
California; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed
in July 2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda
County; and Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September
2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda
County); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central
Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015 in the
Federal District Court, New Jersey); Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v.
XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court,
Pennsylvania); and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile,
Inc., filed in November 2015 in the Federal District Court,
Connecticut).

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network
of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage
their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains.  The
Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and
small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent
companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile TCPA Claims Still in Initial Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act is still in the initial pleading
stage, according to XPO Logistics, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation
(Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S.
District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer
call system used by a last mile logistics business that the
Company acquired. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and
the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as
a class action.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to this matter. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of this matter given, among other reasons,
that the Company is vigorously defending the matter and believes
that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses and that it
remains uncertain what evidence of their claims and damages, if
any, plaintiffs will be able to present.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network
of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage
their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains.  The
Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and
small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent
companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: Payments in "Mendoza" Case Settlement Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the administration
of settlement payments in the lawsuit entitled Manuela Ruelas
Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc., is yet to be completed.

One of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries also is a
party to a putative class action litigation (Manuela Ruelas
Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina on August
19, 2013 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should
be classified as an employee, rather than an independent
contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various
California wage and hour laws on behalf of himself and all owner-
operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August
19, 2009 to April 29, 2016. Certain of these potential claimants
also may have Pending DLSE Claims.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation
with the claimant. The Court has approved the settlement
agreement, and it has been accepted by 520 members of the putative
class. The administration of settlement payments is yet to be
completed. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed
settlement.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network
of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage
their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains.  The
Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and
small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent
companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settles "Pina" Wage and Hour Suit vs. LTL Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc., has settled a purported class action lawsuit
against a Less-Than-Truckload subsidiary alleging violations of
the state of California's wage and hour laws, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The Company's Less-Than-Truckload ("LTL") subsidiary is a party to
several class action litigations alleging violations of the state
of California's wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege failure to
provide drivers with required meal breaks and rest breaks.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages,
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The primary case is Jose
Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the
"Pina case"). The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009
in Monterey County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S.
District Court of California, Northern District. The Company has
reached an agreement to settle the Pina case, which has been
tentatively approved by the court, but is subject to further legal
challenge after notice of the settlement is sent to purported
class members.

Until the challenge period elapses, the Company says there can be
no assurance that the settlement agreement will be approved. The
Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network
of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage
their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains.  The
Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and
small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent
companies in the world.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Sends Reinsurance Issue to NY App. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals case captioned GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, successor in interest to CONSTITUTION REINSURANCE
CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. CENTURY
INDEMNITY COMPANY, successor in interest to CCI INSURANCE COMPANY,
successor in interest to INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Docket No. 15-2164-cv (2d
Cir.), arises out of a dispute between Century Indemnity Company
and Global Reinsurance Corporation of America over the extent to
which Global is obligated to reinsure Century pursuant to certain
reinsurance certificates.

In this case, between 1971 and 1980, Century issued nine
reinsurance certificates with Global.  The certificates provided
that Global would reinsure specified portions of general liability
insurance policies that Century had issued to Caterpillar Tractor
Company.  In this arrangement, Century is known as the "ceding
insurer" because it is "ceding" or spreading its risk of loss
among one or more reinsurers.

Beginning in 1988, thousands of lawsuits were filed against
Caterpillar alleging bodily injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos.  A coverage dispute the arose between Century and
Caterpillar, and both companies filed suit in Illinois seeking
declaratory judgments concerning their obligations under the
insurance policies.  As a result of the Illinois litigation,
Century became obligated to reimburse Caterpillar for defense
expenses in addition to the indemnity limits of the policies.
Global alleges that Century has already paid more than $60 million
to Caterpillar and has agreed to pay an additional $30.5 million.
Global further alleges that only about 10% of this amount
represents what Century refers to as "loss," whereas about 90%
represents what Century refers to as "expenses."

Century then sought reimbursement from Global for portions of its
payments to Caterpillar pursuant to the reinsurance certificates.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Lorna G. Schofield, J.) held that the dollar amount stated
in the "Reinsurance Accepted" section of the certificates
unambiguously caps the amount that Global can be obligated to pay
Century for both "losses" and "expenses" combined.  Century
contends that Global is obligated to pay expenses in addition to
the amount stated in the "Reinsurance Accepted" provision and
that, at a minimum, the district court erred in concluding that
the certificates were unambiguous.  Because this case presents an
important question of New York law that the New York Court of
Appeals has never directly addressed, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of
Appeals the following question:

   Does the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Excess
Insurance Co. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 3 N.Y.3d 577
(2004), impose either a rule of construction, or a strong
presumption, that a per occurrence liability cap in a reinsurance
contract limits the total reinsurance available under the contract
to the amount of the cap regardless of whether the underlying
policy is understood to cover expenses such as, for instance,
defense costs?

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 8, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/DxF53Z from Leagle.com.

JONATHAN HACKER, Esq. -- jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
(Daryn E. Rush, Esq. -- rushd@whiteandwilliams.com -- Ellen K.
Burrows, Esq. -- burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and
Williams LLP, Philadelphia, PA, on the brief) Washington, D.C.,
for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.

DAVID L. PITCHFORD, Pitchford Law Group LLC, New York, NY, for
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.

STEVEN C. SCHWARTZ, Esq. -- s.schwartz@chaffetzlindsey.com --
Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, (Peter R. Chaffetz, Esq. --
peter.chaffetz@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Gretta L. Walters, on the
brief), New York, NY, for on Benfield U.S.; Guy Carpenter &
Company, LLC; JLT Re (North America Inc.); and Willis Re Inc., as
amicus curiae supporting Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Summary Judgment in "Linsowe" Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned SHARRON LINSOWE et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC., et al., Defendants
and Respondents, No. B263726 (Cal. App.), which is related to the
so-called "LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES," the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Four, reversed the summary
judgment in favor of defendant Honeywell International, Inc.,
successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation.

The case arose following the death of Henry Linsowe.  The
Plaintiffs, Linsowe's wife and sons, alleged that while Linsowe
was a career brake mechanic working on Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury
vehicles, he was exposed to asbestos-containing brake parts
supplied by defendant Honeywell.  Honeywell moved for summary
judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not present a triable
issue of fact as to whether Linsowe was exposed to asbestos-
containing Bendix products.  The trial court granted the motion.

The Court of Appeals of California reversed, holding that evidence
demonstrated that during the time Linsowe worked on Ford, Lincoln,
and Mercury vehicles, Bendix supplied asbestos-containing brake
parts for many of those cars.  Some evidence directly connected
Linsowe's work with specific models of vehicles that contained
Bendix parts.  This evidence was sufficient to establish a triable
issue as to whether Linsowe was exposed to Bendix brake parts, and
the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, the Court
of Appeals of California concluded.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 7, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/hqSp2s from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants:

     John C. Heubeck, Esq.
     Marc A. Lowe, Esq.
     HEUBECK LAW, P.C.
     400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Tel: 310-426-2043

Horvitz & Levy, Curt Cutting, Esq. -- ccutting@horvitzlevy.com --
John A. Taylor, Jr., Esq. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com; Ongaro,
David R. Ongaro, Nevin C. Brownfield for Defendants and
Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puget Sound No Longer a Defendant in "Johnson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARCELLA JOHNSON, as Successor-in-Interest
to and as Wrongful Death Heir of RICHARD JOHNSON, Deceased; and
DEVIN JOHNSON, TIFFANEY JOHNSON, as Wrongful Death Heirs of
RICHARD JOHNSON, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC (FKA
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION), et al., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-
02664-EMC (N.D. Calif.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, approved a
stipulation dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against
Defendant Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc. (fka Todd Shipyards
Corporation), pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The 3/27/17 jury trial and trial related deadlines are
vacated.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 6, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/MZaC7y from Leagle.com.

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP.

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell
LLP.

Marcella Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Devin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Tiffaney Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center Inc, Defendant, represented by Demian
David Steele, Yaron & Associates, George D. Yaron, Yaron &
Associates & Michael C. Guasco, Yaron & Associates.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company on behalf of its suspended
insured Associated Insulation of California, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Michael Eric Sandgren, Esq. --
msandgren@selmanlaw.com -- Selman Breitman LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACL Directed to Produce Docs in Take-Home Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM NEY, Individually and as Executor of
the Estate of LORETTA NEY, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Civil
Action No. 16-2408 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denies the motion for sanctions filed by the
plaintiff against Asbestos Corporation Limited but granted the
plaintiff's request to compel ACL to produce discovery but on a
more limited scale than previously sought by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued ACL, among others, alleging that Loretta Ney,
now deceased, was exposed to asbestos contained in the defendants'
products when she was a child living with her father who worked as
an asbestos insulator for Bethlehem Steel from 1948 to 1953.  Ms.
Ney's father allegedly brought particles of asbestos home in his
car and on his clothes.  Ms. Ney contends that she came into
contact with asbestos particles when she rode in her father's car
or laundered his clothing.  On or about November 29, 2012, Ms. Ney
was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Magistrate Rueter held, among other things, that the Plaintiff is
entitled to discovery to determine whether ACL's raw asbestos
fiber is a component in the asbestos product to which the
plaintiff's father allegedly was exposed.  Magistrate Rueter also
pointed out that the evidence the Plaintiff is seeking from ACL is
not cumulative, is relevant, is not specific but wide-ranging in
scope.

Because the state court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion to
compel is vacated, Magistrate Rueter will deny the Motions for
Sactions.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum of Decision dated December 6,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/I7KcXW and accompanying Order
is available at https://is.gd/CIS2RZ from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM NEY, Plaintiff, represented by JACQUELINE P. GRUHLER, Esq.
-- jgruhler@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC.

WILLIAM NEY, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM L. KUZMIN, Esq. --
wkuzmin@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC.

OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, represented by M. DENISE MORETZ,
Esq. -- dmoretz@wmbac.com -- WOOLF MCCLAIN BRIGHT ALLEN &
CARPENTER, PLLC, pro hac vice, RANDOLPH L. BURNS, THE BURNS LAW
FIRM PC, pro hac vice, GLENN P. CALLAHAN, MCCARTER ENGLISH LLP &
INGRID H. GRAFF, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant, represented by JANET E.
GOLUP, KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Cross Claimant, represented by JANET
E. GOLUP, KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Cross Defendant, represented by
JANET E. GOLUP, KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC.

OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by M. DENISE
MORETZ, WOOLF MCCLAIN BRIGHT ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC, pro hac
vice, RANDOLPH L. BURNS, THE BURNS LAW FIRM PC, pro hac vice,
GLENN P. CALLAHAN, MCCARTER ENGLISH LLP & INGRID H. GRAFF,
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversity Show Cause Order Issued in "Schmidt"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut ordered Case Corp., f/k/a Case
Equipment Corp., to show cause by December 15, 2016, whether the
Court has jurisdiction over the case captioned JAMES SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff, v. CASE CORP. f/k/a CASE EQUIPMENT CORP., Defendant,
No. 3:16-cv-01995 (JAM)(D. Conn.), by filing the proper signed
statements about the diversity of the parties, whether the
defendant intends to move to substitute the correct party in
interest, and whether the intended party in interest is completely
diverse from the plaintiff.  A full-text copy of the Order dated
December 8, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/3N82RA from
Leagle.com.

James Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry &
Neusner.

Case Corp, Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin, Esq. --
rmartin@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote's Suit vs. Aviva Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, approved
the stipulation between The Flintkote Company and The Flintkote
Asbestos Trust and Aviva PLC, Aviva International Insurance, Ltd.,
and Ocean Marine Insurance Company Limited to dismiss, with
prejudice, the action styled THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY and THE
FLINTKOTE TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. AVIVA PLC, AVIVA INTERNATIONAL
INSURANCE, LTD. and OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-01638-SI (N.D. Calif.), pursuant to
the Parties' settlement agreement, which has been approved by the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and
contains an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolving
conflicts thereunder.

The case involves several insurance policies, including an
agreement concerning asbestos-related claims, and a 1989 agreement
between Flintkote and The Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd.
Despite the complexity of the insurance dispute, the first issue
here is whether Aviva may substitute The Ocean Marine Insurance
Company in its place as the sole defendant in the action.  The
second issue is whether Flintkote, which underwent a bankruptcy
plan of reorganization, may add The Flintkote Trust as a
plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation dated December 6, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/G7aC2A from Leagle.com.

Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, represented by Marc S. Maister,
Irell & Manella LLP.

Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Collins
Smith, McCarter & English, LLP, Cathy Tran Moses, Irell and
Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English LLP, pro hac
vice, Louis A. Chiafullo, McCarter and English, pro hac vice &
Michael Richard Fehner, Irell & Manella LLP.

Flintkote Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Marc S. Maister, Irell
& Manella LLP, Michael Collins Smith, McCarter & English, LLP,
Cathy Tran Moses, Irell and Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild,
McCarter & English LLP, pro hac vice, Louis A. Chiafullo, McCarter
and English, pro hac vice & Michael Richard Fehner, Irell &
Manella LLP.

Aviva PLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co
US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro
hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice
& Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and Co. LLP.

The Ocean Marin Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II,
Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, Walker
Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker
Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and
Co. LLP.

Aviva International Insurance Limited, Defendant, represented by
Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II,
Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, Walker
Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker
Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and
Co. LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pudsey Widow Seeks Info From Husband Co-Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Griffiths, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that a
widow who believes she was exposed to asbestos decades ago while
washing her husband's clothes is appealing for his former
workmates to come forward with information.

Annie Place, known as Nancy, who is 85 and lives in Pudsey, hopes
people who worked with her husband Rowland when he was a
maintenance man will get in touch with details about their working
conditions.

Mrs Place has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lining of the lungs, and has instructed asbestos experts at law
firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate her case.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to people developing mesothelioma in
later life. The disease is caused by inhaling asbestos dust and it
can take years for symptoms to appear.

Mr Place, known as Rowly to his friends, died 11 years ago, aged
78, from lung cancer after more than 50 years of marriage.

He had worked as a French polisher and shop fitter for various
employers when the couple first met, and later worked as a
maintenance man for Executex, also known as Black & Luper, a
tailoring factory in Kirkstall Road, Leeds, from 1962 to 1971.

After that he went on to work as a machine operator at Howson
Aligraphy, which over the years was also known as Eastman Colour,
DuPont and Vickers, in Leeds from 1971 to 1989.

Solicitors acting for Mrs Place want to speak to some of Rowland's
former colleagues, from any of his former jobs, to find out about
his working conditions and to try and establish where he may have
come into contact with asbestos.

Ian Toft, an expert in asbestos-related disease cases at Irwin
Mitchell, who is acting for Mrs Place, said: "We would like to
hear from Rowland's former colleagues as they may have additional
information about the presence of asbestos and working conditions
that could help in Nancy's legal battle."

The grandmother-of-two said: "When I was told my diagnosis, I was
distraught, but knowing the cause of my illness may be due to
Rowly's former employers is a particularly bitter pill to swallow.
I lost him due to lung problems 11 years ago and now I'm suffering
from similar issues.

"I'm hoping his former colleagues will get in touch as they may
have extra information that could help in my battle for justice."

Anyone who thinks they may be able to help should contact Ian Toft
on 0113 218 6453 or email Ian.Toft@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Husband's Anglesey Co-Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Spridgeon, writing for News North Wales, reported that a
widow is appealing for help to find her husband's former Anglesey
and Gwynedd work colleagues after he died from asbestos-related
lung disease.

Bill Royston-Haines died aged 72 in March 2014 from asbestosis, a
lung disease, caused by breathing in asbestos dust and fibres.

Now his widow, Pam, is eager to hear from anyone who worked for
Calveley Heating Ltd, based in Llangefni, or Gwynedd County
Council during the 1970s.

Mr Royston-Haines was a plumber and heating engineer for Calveley
from 1971-74 and 1977-78 and for Gwynedd County Council from 1974-
77.

The couple lived in Benllech around 1971 and later in Valley. Mr
Royston-Haines travelled widely across North Wales, working in
industrial, commercial, public and residential properties.

The couple also owned the Valley Stores and Valley post office
where they were postmaster and mistress.

Asbestos was widely used in buildings including homes, schools,
factories and council buildings for its fire-proof and insulation
properties.

It was Mr Royston-Haines' job to strip out old boilers and replace
pipes, which would have contained asbestos.

Married for 50 years, Mr Royston-Haines also left behind a
daughter, four grandchildren and two great grandchildren.

With the help of the National Asbestos Helpline and Birchall
Blackburn Law, Mrs Royston Haines and her family are looking for
her husband's 1970's work colleagues, who might remember finding
asbestos in buildings where plumbing and engineering work was
carried out.

Mrs Royston-Haines, who now lives in Nottingham, said: "There were
no masks or anything like that in those days.

"In recent years Bill had started to hear of a lot of people his
age dying of asbestos exposure. He said that he'd got to the age
of 72 and would be all right, but it got
him in the end.

"We think he was diagnosed with the lung disease so late because
he was determined to get on with it.

Even after he was diagnosed, he didn't give up.

"He was still cutting the hedge and we thought he'd got it under
control."

Asbestosis affects people exposed to high levels of asbestos.

Once inhaled, the asbestos fibres lodge in the lungs and over time
damages air sacs that supply oxygen to the blood.

It has no cure and can severely restrict breathing and leaves
sufferers breathlessness, with chest pains and coughing.

Jan Garvey from the National Asbestos Helpline, said: "We talk to
people like Pam every day.

"They're active and looking forward to the rest of their lives
with their family but suddenly face a terrible illness and
uncertainty.

The asbestos legacy continues to destroy people's lives."

Fiona Hendry, asbestos-disease specialist with Birchall Blackburn
Law, said: "We would like to hear from anyone who worked for
Gwynedd County Council's heating engineers unit during the 1970s
or also worked for Calveley Heating Ltd.

"They may have worked with Bill Haines or know about asbestos
where he worked. Details will remain confidential."

Call Fiona Hendry on 01244 684 475 or Jan Garvey on freephone 0800
043 6635, or email fxhendry@birchallblackburn.co.uk. For
information, go to www.nationalasbestos.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Probing on Husband Asbestos-Related Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Willmott, writing for Coventry Observer, reported that the
widow of a carpenter who died just months after being diagnosed to
asbestos-related cancer has demanded to know why her husband
wasn't better protected from the deadly dust.

Sylvia Hall, 72, from Coventry lost husband Frank on February 7
this year, just four months after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a cancer on the lining of the lungs caused by
inhaling asbestos dust.

Frank, who was 75 when he died, worked as a carpenter for a number
of businesses and ogranisations.

Sylvia instructed expert asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin
Mitchell to investigate the safety measures in place at each
company to see how Frank came into contact with asbestos.

Now Sylvia is calling on former colleagues to come forward to help
with the investigation.

She said: "Frank's death has left a huge void in our lives. He
will be missed dearly by all those who knew him.

"His illness took him very quickly and he suffered a great deal of
pain and anguish. Despite his condition, Frank battled bravely and
with great courage until the very end.

"Now I just want to know how Frank was able to get mesothelioma.
Why wasn't he better protected?

"Nothing can turn back the clock of course, but it is important
for my family and I to have these answers and to hold these
organisations to account if they did not uphold their
responsibilities to their workforce."

Hayley Hill, an expert asbestos related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, representing Frank's family, said: "Mesothelioma is an
asbestos-related disease for which there is sadly no cure.

"Companies have been well aware of the risks associated with
exposing staff to asbestos since before the 1950s so there is no
excuse for workers not to have been properly protected.

"Any former colleagues should get in touch as any information, no
matter how small, could help us with our investigation and give
Frank's family the answers they deserve."

Anyone with information can contact Hayley Hill at Irwin Mitchell
on 0121 214 5407 or by email at hayley.hill@irwinmitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minnesota Couple Sues Crown, Cork, et al.
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a Minnesota couple alleges the husband has been injured
because of asbestos exposure.

John Skeate and Florence Skeate filed a complaint on Nov. 30 in
Madison County Circuit Court against Crown, Cork & Seal USA Inc.,
John Crane Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, John Skeate worked for various power
houses and was exposed to and ingested large amounts of asbestos
fibers emanating from products manufactured by defendants. On Aug.
24, the suit states he first became aware that he had developed
non-malignant bilateral pleural plaques, an asbestos-related
disease. Plaintiff Florence Skeate alleges she has been deprived
of the companionship, services and society of her husband.

The plaintiffs hold Crown, Cork & Seal USA Inc., John Crane Inc.
and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. responsible because the
defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos in their
products when adequate substitutes were readily available and
failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions on how to
avoid inhaling asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in favor
of each plaintiff in an amount of more than $50,000. They are
represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle, Stephen B. Wohlford, Matthew
C. Morris, J. Joseph Kusmierczak, et al. of SWMK Law LLC in St.
Louis, Missouri.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-1641


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bronchoalveolar Lavage Accurate for Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ines Martins, writing for Mesothelioma Research News, reported
that bronchoalveolar lavage may be a promising way of confirming
asbestos exposure, allowing clinicians to identify people at risk
of developing mesothelioma.

The study, "Utility of Bronchoalveolar Lavage for the Diagnosis of
Asbestos-Related Diseases," conduced by a Spanish research team,
was published in the journal Archivos de Bronconeumolog¬°a.

Bronchoalveolar lavage, an easily performed and well-tolerated
procedure, consists of irrigating a patient's bronchi with a
saline solution to detect cellular (mostly immune cell) and
acellular changes in the lungs, helping doctors to diagnosis and
manage certain diseases.

The method had already been proposed as an objective way of
detecting asbestos exposure. Maria Jesus Cruz, with University
Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, and colleagues assessed its
performance and diagnostic reliability for asbestos-related
diseases.

They collected bronchoalveolar lavage samples from 72 patients
undergoing bronchoscopy, mostly men who were on average 66 years
old. Lung tissue from 23 of these patients was also analyzed.

The accepted threshold value for diagnosing asbestos-related
diseases is one asbestos body per milliliter of fluid or, in the
case of lung samples, 1000 asbestos bodies per gram of dry tissue.

Analyzing patients' history and medical records, the researchers
identified 39 people who had been exposed to the carcinogen.
However, only 33 percent of these patients exhibited asbestos
bodies above the threshold value.

In addition, among the 33 patients with no history of asbestos
exposure, five had asbestos bodies above threshold values.
Nonetheless, the team reports a significant difference in the
levels of asbestos bodies in exposed and non-exposed patients.

The researchers found that the best threshold value to detect
asbestos exposure is half the previously established value -- 0.5
asbestos bodies per milliliter of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid --
which showed a sensitivity of 46 percent and a specificity of 83
percent. This means that this threshold value can identify 46 out
of 100 patients with asbestos exposure, and 83 out of 100 patients
who were never exposed to the carcinogen.

Together, the results suggest that bronchoalveolar lavage is an
objective measure of exposure to asbestos. Given that correlation
between asbestos bodies in both the brochoalveolar fluid and the
lungs is good, the researchers believe that both techniques can be
used to analyze a person's exposure and disease risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sinclair Pays EPA $65K for Asbestos Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Peterson, writing for Casper Star Tribune, reported that
Sinclair Casper Refining Company recently paid the Environmental
Protection Agency $655,000 to settle a decades-old cleanup in
Thermopolis.

The company agreed in September to pay for costs associated with
reclaiming the site of the company's Thermopolis oil refinery,
which operated from 1920 to 1969, according to a news release from
the EPA.

"Beginning in 1974, the refinery was razed and equipment was sold
and removed from the site by various entities, including
Sinclair's predecessor, Little America Refining Company," the news
release stated. "During demolition activities, a significant
amount of asbestos-contaminated pipe insulation was stripped from
equipment and disposed at the site."

When the EPA examined the site in 2011, officials found
"significant asbestos contamination." The federal agency then
removed about 4,000 cubic yards of material and soil containing
asbestos. Clean, native soil was brought to fill excavated areas
in November 2013, and the site was reseeded the following spring.

The agreement is part of the federal Superfund program, which is
dedicated to cleaning some of the country's most contaminated
land.

Other Superfund sites in Wyoming included the Baxter/Union Pacific
Tie Treating site, which was removed from the list in 1999, F.E.
Warren Airforce Base in Cheyenne and the 410-acre Mystery Bridge
Road/U.S. Highway 20 site in Evansville.

Exposure to asbestos has been linked to lung cancer and other lung
diseases.



                            *********

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  * * *