CAR_Public/161219.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 252




                            Headlines

ACCURIDE CORP: 5 Class Suits Challenge Crestview Deal
ACE WENTWORTH: "Huppe" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces UFCW Fund Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces St. Paul Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Settlement Reached in "Gauquie" Suit

AMERICAN EQUITY: Cuts Litigation Liability by $6.4 Million
AMERICARE CERTIFIED: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Suit Over BELVIQ Program
AUTOZONE: Recent Class Action Similar to Frequent Flyer Suits
BBX CAPITAL: Second Suit Challenging Merger With BFC Dismissed

BBX CAPITAL: Wins Approval of $400K Settlement of Antitrust Suit
B/E AEROSPACE: Faces "Klein" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Rockwell
BIG CITY: Illegally Inflates Rents, "Maddicks" Suit Claims
BIOLASE INC: Defends "Shulruff" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed Broadcom Merger

BROTHERHOOD TRUCKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
CANADA: Sixties Scoop Lawyer Questions PM's Reconciliation Move
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defending Securities Suit in C.D. Calif.
CBL & ASSOCIATES: New Mexico ERB Has 60 Days to File Complaint
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses Claims Over PMFG Acquisition

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Has Reached Agreement to Settle Ravenswood Suit
CHEF'D LLC: Faces "Sprosky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHINESE-AMERICAN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
CITIGROUP: High Court Won't Hear 401(k) Plan Participants' Appeal
CITY OF MANSFIELD: Davis et al. Seek to Recoup Wages Under FLSA

COMPREHENSIVE KIDS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
CTC GROUP: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CTI BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Washington
CVS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Barchock" ERISA Suit
CVS HEALTH: Must Defend Against Sheet Metal Workers' Suit

CVS HEALTH: Caremark Suit Dismissed Following Settlement Approval
CVS HEALTH: Certification of Customers Class Sought in Cal. Suit
CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in PBM Antitrust MDL Remains Pending
CVS HEALTH: Discovery Has Commenced in Class Suit vs. Omnicare
DAIMLER: New Jersey Court Dismisses Emissions Class Action

DARPAN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanscrainte" Suit Under FLSA
DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Bench Trial in Do Not Call Suit Ends
DITECH FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Circeo-Loudon" Case Approved
DOCUMENT GROUP: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Faces "Cosio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
ENERGY TRANSFER: Dieckman's Appeal Remains Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Against "Hendley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
FOX ORTEGA: Holds Auction as Part of Premier Cru Settlement
GENESEE & WYOMING: Class Suits Over P&W Acquisition Pending

GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in "Mulvaney" Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania
GOLDEN KRUST: "Acevedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GOODRICH CORPORATION: Sued Over Bargaining Agreement Violation
HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Redmon" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws

HC2 HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by March 2017
HERTZ CORP: Awaits Decision in Parent's Securities Litigation
HERTZ CORP: Awaits Ruling From Ninth Circuit in "Sobel" Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits January 24 Trial in "Powell" Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger Suits

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Unit Appeals Denial in Overdraft Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Case
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case
IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Trial Yet in Digoxin and Doxycycline Suits
IMPAX LABORATORIES: AWP Actions in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed

INCONTACT INC: Reached MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in N.J.
JAY PEAK: Class Action Attorneys Seek Brokerage Records
J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification in Paldo Suit Pending
J2 GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Early 2017

JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Pending
K & R TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits vs. D&Os Filed
KOREA TIMES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kim" Suit Claims
KREATION ORGANIC: "Kaputsos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchasers Win Bid to Sanction Objector
LEGGETT & PLATT: Must Attend Mediation in Polyurethane Foam MDL
LEPAGE BAKERIES: Reached $1.25MM Class Action Settlement
LICE TROOPERS: Faces "Hidalgo" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT: Sued in Ill. Over Excessive Record Fees

LIONS GATE: Court Won't Rush Proceedings in Starz Merger Suit
LIONS GATE: Faces "Gross" Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado
LIONS GATE: "Levy" Suit in New York Challenges Merger With Starz
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: New York Class Action at Preliminary Stage
MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger Suits Settlement

MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Lawyer Responds to Chemo Settlement Objections
MDC PARTNERS: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
MDC PARTNERS: "Paniccia" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
MDL 2371: Appeal in UMS Patent Litigation Pending
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal From Dismissal of LFR Suit Pending

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Defends Airbag Litigation
NAT'L RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued over Reverse Mortgage Loan Policies
NESTLE USA: "Ross" Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Meals
NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Florida

NEWELL BRANDS: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Hirsch" Class Suit
NORTHERN OIL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed
ORTHOTOUCH: Georgiou Accused of Hijacking Highveld Class Action
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
PMK*BNC: Faces "Vainer" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Interns

PROGRESSIVE: Auto Body Shops' Class Action Can't Proceed
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Retirement Sys. Suit Remains Stayed
PTT EXPLORATION: Indonesia Mulls Suit Over Montara Oil Spill
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Suit Continued
RICO PAN: "De Leon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA

RIO TINTO: Weiner Trust Files Suit Over "Misleading" Reports
SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Remand Two Class Actions
SID'S SEALANTS: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
SIRIUS XM: Settlement May Solidify Position in Digital Music
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Considers All Natural Litigation to Be Closed

SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Class Suit by IBOs in Tennessee
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Two Suits Over Diamond Foods Deal
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Settles "Sparks" Suit for $700,000
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice Term Pending
SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Rest Break

SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Bush Fire Survivors Set to Get Payouts
STARWOOD HOTELS: Seeks More Time to Reply to "Dugas" Amended Suit
STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Case Underway
SUNSHINE LANDSCAPERS: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TAMPA ELECTRIC: Appeal by Insurers in Suit vs. NMGC Dismissed

TAMPA ELECTRIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Medicaid Program Certification
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Alleges Conspiracy Over Pravastatin
TRACFONE WIRELESS: City of Pickering to Take Part in Class Action
TRUEBLUE INC: Settles Class Action for $5MM, Feb. 6 Hearing Set

TUBEMOGUL: Faces "Theil" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Sale to Adobe
TUBEMOGUL INC: Faces "Yavuz" Sued Over Proposed Sale to Adobe
TYAN INC: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
UBS SECURITIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Incentive Pay
UNITED DEV'T: Judge Sends Class Action Back to Chancery Court

VAALCO ENERGY: Wins Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Butcher" Suit
VALHI INC: Suits Arising From Use of Lead Pigments Remain Pending
VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Question AG's Role in Asphalt Class Action
WALTER INVESTMENT: $24 Million Settlement Has Final Approval
WATTS WATER: Still Awaits OK of $14-Mil. Deal in Connector Suits

WELLS FARGO: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, "Wang" Suit Says
WIND RIVER: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Securities Action Still Pending
YAHOO! INC: UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action Still Pending
YAHOO! INC: Faces "Stras" in N.D. Cal. Suit Over Data Breach



                            *********


ACCURIDE CORP: 5 Class Suits Challenge Crestview Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Accuride Corporation is facing five class action lawsuits in
federal and state courts in Indiana challenging a proposed merger
deal with Crestview Partners, according to its November 8, 2016,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 2, 2016,
by and among the Company, Armor Parent Corp. and Armor Merger Sub
Corp., provides for the merger of Armor Merger Sub Corp. with and
into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Armor Parent Corp.

Among other things, the Company supplemented the disclosure under
the heading "Background of the Merger" by stating that on June 13,
2016, the Board authorized the formation of an "ad hoc"
transaction committee of the Board (the "Ad Hoc Transaction
Committee") for administrative convenience and efficiency in light
of the expectation that the significant level of activity
following the submission of Crestview's indication of interest
would increase after the approval of the exclusivity agreement
with Crestview. Messrs. Risner, Davis and Adams were appointed to
the Ad Hoc Transaction Committee due to, among other things, their
knowledge of Accuride as a result of their service as the Chairman
of the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Compensation Committee
and Chairman of the Audit Committee, respectively, and their
extensive executive and financial leadership experience.  A copy
of the supplemental information is available at
https://is.gd/9Z3jU8

As previously disclosed on the definitive proxy statement filed by
the Company with the SEC on October 17, 2016, in connection with
the proposed transaction and on the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 1, 2016, five putative
class action complaints have been filed in connection with the
proposed transaction. Three of these complaints were filed in
state courts in the State of Indiana, County of Vanderburgh: (i)
Alexander v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on September 14, 2016
in Vanderburgh Superior Court; (ii) Raul v. Adams, et al., filed
on September 20, 2016 in Vanderburgh Circuit Court; and (iii)
Rosenfeld v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 18, 2016 in
Vanderburgh Superior Court (collectively, the "State Actions").
Two of these complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana: (i) Jones v. Accuride
Corp., et al., filed on October 20, 2016 and (ii) Suokko v.
Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 24, 2016 (together, the
"Federal Actions" and together with the State Actions, the
"Actions").

The Actions allege, among other things, that the members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration
and failing to disclose purportedly material information to
stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction, that
certain provisions in the Merger Agreement relating to the
proposed transaction unfairly deter a potential alternative
transaction and that the Company and its board of directors
violated various federal securities laws in failing to disclose
purportedly material information to stockholders in connection
with the proposed transaction.

The Company says the defendants named in the Actions deny all
liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the
Actions and specifically deny that any breach of fiduciary duty
occurred, or that any further disclosure is required to supplement
the Definitive Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. Nonetheless, the Company has determined to
supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement with the disclosures set
forth below. In making these supplemental disclosures, the Company
and its board of directors do not in any way admit the factual or
legal allegations in the Actions and further reserve all of their
rights and defenses with respect thereto.

                           *     *     *

Accuride on Nov. 18 announced the completion of its acquisition by
funds managed by Crestview Partners, a New York based private
equity firm, pursuant to the merger agreement it announced on
Sept. 2.  Accuride's shareholders adopted the merger agreement at
the Company's Special Meeting of Shareholders held on Nov. 15.


ACE WENTWORTH: "Huppe" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE HUPPE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACE WENTWORTH, INC., d/b/a WENTWORTH GOLF
CLUB, and WILLIAM PLACE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-
cv-03381-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 12, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate multiple golf clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     201 N. Franklin Street, #700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces UFCW Fund Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Perrigo New York Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and
Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-09431
(S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
raise the prices of and allocate markets and customers for
desonide topical cream and ointment products.

Desonide is a commonly prescribed medication used to treat skin
conditions such as dermatitis and eczema.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, marketing,
and selling branded and generic pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces St. Paul Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Sandoz, Inc., Novartis International AG, Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech
Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo New York, Inc.,
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-09530 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 9, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise the prices
of and allocate markets and customers for desonide topical cream
and ointment products.

Desonide is a commonly prescribed medication used to treat skin
conditions such as dermatitis and eczema.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, marketing,
and selling branded and generic pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
      Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
              delman@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      David Woodward, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
              vesades@heinsmills.com
              dwoodward@heinsmills.com


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Settlement Reached in "Gauquie" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research,
Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-06637 (E.D.N.Y.) have reached a proposed
settlement and on Dec. 16, Judge Frederic Block held that based
upon Plaintiff's letter application filed that day, the Court will
refrain from ruling on defendant's pending motion for
reconsideration.  The Court held that by February 10, 2017 the
parties shall file either their stipulation of settlement or a
status report letter as to their settlement. Any application with
respect to their discovery schedule or the January 12, 2017
conference should be addressed to MJ Gold.

Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that on
November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John Gauquie
v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-6637, was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. An amended complaint was filed on March 31,
2015. The amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's alleged failure to
disclose in its August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial
results for the second quarter of 2014 that one of the
manufacturing facilities experienced a power interruption in July
2014. The amended complaint alleges that the price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014
and November 5, 2014, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants submitted on July 29, 2015 a motion to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs submitted an
opposition on October 7, 2015, and defendants submitted a reply on
November 20, 2015.

On July 26, 2016, the court denied the defendants motion to
dismiss. The Company filed a motion to reconsider its July 29,
2015 motion to dismiss lead plaintiff's amended complaint.

Albany Molecular Research, Inc. is a global contract research and
manufacturing organization providing customers fully integrated
drug discovery, development, and manufacturing services.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Cuts Litigation Liability by $6.4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that during the three months ended September 30, 2016, the
Company reduced the litigation liability related to the case,
American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, by $6.4
million.

The Company said, "Companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims. We were a defendant in a purported class action,
McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance
Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v.
American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District,
entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales
Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles
Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and
similar claims."

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class
action for settlement purposes only. A class member filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on February 28, 2014. On February 17, 2016, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the terms
of the settlement agreement and on April 6, 2016, the class
member's subsequent request for a rehearing en banc was denied.
All remaining opportunities for appeal have passed.

"During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we reduced the
litigation liability related to the Los Angeles Case by $6.4
million as we paid out $1.8 million in partial settlement,
reclassified $1.8 million from the litigation liability to policy
benefit reserves and other policy funds and contract claims and
released $2.8 million of the litigation liability as additional
information became available concerning the nature and magnitude
of claims based on the terms of the settlement. After this
activity, we estimate our litigation liability in this matter to
be $4.7 million based on our best estimate of probable loss. There
can be no assurance that any other pending or future litigation
will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations.

"In addition to our commitments to fund mortgage loans, we have
unfunded commitments at September 30, 2016 to limited partnerships
of $58.8 million and to secured bank loans of $35.3 million."

American Equity specializes in the sale of individual annuities
(primarily deferred annuities) and, to a lesser extent, it also
sells life insurance policies.


AMERICARE CERTIFIED: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khalima Nix Dekhkanova, Klara Barnard, Navruza Z. Khalilova,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Americare Certified Special Services Inc., and Americare, Inc.,
Case No. 522052/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 12, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a work week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides home care
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Suit Over BELVIQ Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against a class action related to its
BELVIQ program.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice.

"On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the
second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all
parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the
action with prejudice.

"On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

"On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate
brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October
24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead
plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed
his reply brief.

"A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on
May 4, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed
the district court's dismissal of the second consolidated amended
complaint and remanded the case back to the district court for
further proceedings.

"Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict
or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims."


AUTOZONE: Recent Class Action Similar to Frequent Flyer Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Minnesota attorney from Kennedy & Kennedy law firm says a recent
lawsuit filed against AutoZone over its customer loyalty reward
program is similar to those that were filed against airlines in
frequent flyer miles disputes.

Mary Ruth Hughes and Kevin Shenkman filed the class action
complaint in Superior Court of the State of California against
AutoZone, alleging breach of contract, fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.  The defendant subsequently removed the lawsuit
to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 27.

The complaint stated that Ms. Hughes and Mr. Shenkman suffered
monetary damages as a result of AutoZone's allegedly misleading
rewards program.  The plaintiffs said AutoZone changed expiration
dates of credits built up by their customers.

Chris Kennedy, managing partner at Kennedy & Kennedy, often speaks
on legal matters with the media in Minnesota.  He spoke on the
strength of the case in the class action suit brought forth by the
plaintiffs in California.

"Negligent misrepresentation is the strongest allegation of the
three," Mr. Kennedy said.

"The defendant likely never fully explained that the program could
go away or be limited in certain instances or it made it difficult
for the consumer to know.  Like with frequent flyer programs,
people didn't realize there were blackout dates.

"Large companies are usually good at putting out disclaimers, just
not always in a manner that anybody looks at."

Why would a company change its expiration dates on credits for
rewards? Mr. Kennedy had a simple answer.

"Profit," Mr. Kennedy said.  "If by changing the dates, they may
reduce liabilities, or in some way they can increase what is in
their balance sheets, then there is a motive to do it."

Mr. Kennedy continued to compare the suit to frequent flyer mile
program lawsuits against the airlines in recent decades. He also
mentioned how other types of promotions from companies have led to
class action suits under similar pretenses.

"There were several regarding frequent flyer mile programs,"
Mr. Kennedy said.  "In the past four or five years, there have
been lawsuits brought forth regarding gift cards."

Hughes and Shenkman sought trial by jury, compensatory and general
damages, interest, an order for the defendant to make a payment to
a cy pres fund, court costs and any further relief the court
grants.  They are represented by attorneys Todd W. Bonder and Ryan
M. Lapine -- rlapine@rmslaw.com -- of Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
LLP in Beverly Hills, California, and by Seth Yohalem of Waskowski
Johnson Yohalem LLP in Chicago.


BBX CAPITAL: Second Suit Challenging Merger With BFC Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 a second lawsuit
challenging its merger with BFC Financial Corporation was
dismissed with prejudice.

BBX Capital entered into a definitive merger agreement with BFC
Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Subsidiary LLC, a newly
formed wholly owned subsidiary of BFC ("Merger Sub") on July 27,
2016 and amended on October 20, 2016. The Merger Agreement
provides for BBX Capital Corporation to merge with and into Merger
Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving
company of the Merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of BFC.

On August 10, 2016, Shiva Stein filed a lawsuit against BFC,
Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's board of
directors, which seeks to establish a class of BBX Capital's
shareholders and challenges the currently proposed Merger pursuant
to which BBX Capital would merge with and into a wholly-owned
subsidiary of BFC.  This action, styled Shiva Stein, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. BBX Capital Corp.,
John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Willis N.
Holcombe, Jarett S. Levan, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C.
Winningham, II, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger
Subsidiary LLC, Case No. CACE16014713, was filed in the Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida. The plaintiff asserts that the proposed Merger
consideration undervalues BBX Capital and is unfair to BBX
Capital's public shareholders, that the sales process was unfair
and that BBX Capital's directors breached their fiduciary duties
of care, loyalty and candor owed to the public shareholders of BBX
Capital because, among other reasons, they failed to take steps to
maximize the value of BBX Capital to its public shareholders and
instead diverted consideration to themselves. The lawsuit also
alleges that BFC, as the controlling shareholder of BBX Capital,
breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor owed to
the public shareholders of BBX Capital by utilizing confidential,
non-public information to formulate the Merger consideration and
not acting in the best interests of BBX Capital's public
shareholders. In addition, the lawsuit includes a cause of action
against BBX Capital, BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit requests
that the court grant an injunction blocking the proposed Merger
or, if the proposed Merger is completed, rescind the transaction
or award damages as determined by the court.

BFC and BBX Capital believe that the lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action.

A second lawsuit which sought to challenge the merger and included
many of the same claims as set forth in the Stein action was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida during September 2016. This lawsuit was
dismissed with prejudice during October 2016.

BBX Capital and BFC have also received threats of additional
litigation relating to the proposed Merger.

BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based company involved in the
acquisition, development, ownership and management of and
investments in real estate and real estate development projects as
well as operating businesses.  Prior to the sale of BankAtlantic
to BB&T Corporation on July 31, 2012, BBX Capital Corporation was
a bank holding company and its principal asset was the ownership
of BankAtlantic.  The principal assets of BBX Capital currently
consist of its 46% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC,
investments in real estate joint ventures and operating
businesses, and legacy loans and real estate assets transferred to
BBX Capital in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic.


BBX CAPITAL: Wins Approval of $400K Settlement of Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court approved BBX Capital Corporation's $400,000 settlement
of an antitrust class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey,
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 December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to
Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to
plaintiffs' main antitrust claim.

BBX Capital reached an agreement to settle the action for $400,000
and the court approved the settlement in September 2016.

BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based company involved in the
acquisition, development, ownership and management of and
investments in real estate and real estate development projects as
well as operating businesses.  Prior to the sale of BankAtlantic
to BB&T Corporation on July 31, 2012, BBX Capital Corporation was
a bank holding company and its principal asset was the ownership
of BankAtlantic.  The principal assets of BBX Capital currently
consist of its 46% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC,
investments in real estate joint ventures and operating
businesses, and legacy loans and real estate assets transferred to
BBX Capital in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic.


B/E AEROSPACE: Faces "Klein" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Rockwell
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Amin J. Khoury, James F. Albaugh,
David J. Anderson, Richard G. Hamermesh, Werner Lieberherr,
Jonathan M. Schofield, Mary M. Vandeweghe, and John T. Whates,
Case No. 12969 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all public minority stockholders of B/E Aerospace, Inc.
who have been harmed as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty by
the B/E Aerospace Board of Directors in approving the sale of the
Company to Rockwell Collins, Inc., for $34.10 per share in cash
and $27.90 in shares of Rockwell Collins common stock, subject to
a 7.5% collar.

B/E Aerospace, Inc. is a manufacturer of aircraft cabin interior
products.

Rockwell Collins, Inc. provides avionics and information
technology systems and services to governmental agencies and
aircraft manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com
              etripodi@zlk.com


BIG CITY: Illegally Inflates Rents, "Maddicks" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Maddicks, John Ambrosio, Paul Wilder, Samuel Wilder,
Alyssa O'Connell, Johanna S. Karlin, Brian Wagner, Tyler
Strickland, Daniel Robles, Elena Ricardo, Liam Cudmore, Jennifer
Mak, Joshua Berg, Anish Jain, John Curtin, Jonathan Fieweger,
Maria Funcheon, Jordani Sanchez, Melissa Mickens, M.D. Ivey, Devin
Elting, Semi Pak, Kaitlin Campbell, Sarah Norris, Mikiala Jamison,
Sheresa Jenkins-Risteki, Yanira Gomez, and Kristen
Piro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Big City Properties, LLC, and Big City Realty Management, LLC,
Case No. 656345/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged scheme designed to inflate rents over
and above the amounts which they are legally permitted to charge.

The Defendants own and operate more than 20 apartment buildings,
primarily in Harlem.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
      Jarred I. Kassenoff, Esq.
      Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
      NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 619-5400
      E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com
              jkassenoff@nfllp.com
              rsachar@nfllp.com


BIOLASE INC: Defends "Shulruff" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
BIOLASE, Inc., is defending itself against a putative class action
lawsuit commenced by Dr. Charles Shulruff in Illinois, 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 February 24, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The case alleges that the Company violated
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other
related Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing
communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff.
The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class
of comprised of other dentists who received the same or similar
faxes from BIOLASE.  BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14,
2016 and denied liability on all claims.  BIOLASE also denies that
class certification is appropriate.

The Company says the case is in the early stages of discovery and
no substantive motion practice has been conducted by either side
at this time.

BIOLASE, Inc., is a medical device company that develops,
manufactures, markets, and sells laser systems in dentistry and
medicine and also markets, sells, and distributes dental imaging
equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-
oral scanners, in-office, and chair-side milling machines.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed Broadcom Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Judy
Bruner, Lloyd A. Carney, Renato A. Dipentima, Alan L. Earhart ,
John W. Gerdelman, Kim C. Goodman, David L. House, L. William
Krause, David E. Roberson, Sanjay Vaswani, Broadcom Limited,
Broadcom Corporation, and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 3:16-
cv-07081-EMC (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2016), is brought on behalf
of all Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., shareholders  to
enjoin the proposed agreement and plan of merger of the Company
with Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and Bobcat Merger
Sub, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. is a supplier of networking
hardware, software, and services, including Storage Area
Networking solutions and Internet Protocol Networking solutions,
for businesses and organizations of various types and sizes.

Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Corporation operate a fabless
semiconductor company that makes products for the wireless and
broadband communication industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com


BROTHERHOOD TRUCKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
-------------------------------------------------------------
All Well Benson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees v.
Brotherhood Trucking, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Case
No. BC42865 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest period
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Brotherhood Trucking, Inc. owns and operates a company that
transports containers in southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 432-8933
      Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
      E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


CANADA: Sixties Scoop Lawyer Questions PM's Reconciliation Move
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Porter, writing for CBC News, reports that the Prime
Minister's commitment to reconciliation is put in question by
Canada's choice of lawyers for the Sixties Scoop class action,
according to a former band councillor from Kitchenuhmaykoosib
Inninuwug (K.I.) in northern Ontario.

John Cutfeet was among the leaders from his First Nation who were
embroiled in a mining dispute back in 2008.  That's when Owen
Young, then a prosecutor for Ontario, encouraged the judge to
impose "a financial penalty that hurts" on the community to avoid
leaders becoming martyrs by going to jail for their cause.

Now, Mr. Young is the lawyer defending Canada in a class action
suit on the Sixties Scoop.

The wounds from Mr. Young's arguments in court in 2008 are still
fresh in Mr. Cutfeet's mind.

"He was trying to promote the agenda that Indigenous rights did
not exist," Mr. Cutfeet said.  Six K.I. leaders did serve time in
jail for their resistance to mineral exploration on their
traditional lands.

Now, Mr. Cutfeet is questioning Canada's use of Young in the
Sixties Scoop litigation.

"It certainly doesn't contribute to a good relationship or a new
relationship with our people when you have [lawyers] out there
thinking back to old colonial thinking," he said.

Mr. Young argued in court that the concept of Indigenous culture
is too nebulous to require a legal obligation on Canada to protect
it when Indigenous children were apprehended and placed with non-
Indigenous families.

"You begin to see what [Trudeau's] 'sunny ways' really mean when
you have someone who totally wants to disregard Aboriginal
culture, representing the government, especially against children,
children who were stolen from their families,"
Mr. Cutfeet said of Young's remarks.

Mr. Cutfeet said he understands the adversarial role that lawyers
are put in through the court system and said that means the
Liberal's must re-think both their choice of lawyers and which
cases to fight, if they're honest in their desire for
reconciliation.

"There was a lot of hope generated by [Trudeau saying] 'sunny
ways, my friends', but these sort of actions point to the darker
era that we've just come through," he said.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defending Securities Suit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the consolidated amended
complaint in the federal securities class action.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc. v.
Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015
(the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the
"Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013
and November 5, 2015.  The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many
legal and financial obligations to the Company.  The Kinney
Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial statements
were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and
were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting.  The Kinney
Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting
irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations
and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action.  The putative
class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12,
2014 to November 5, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 17, 2016. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed July
29, 2016, and Defendants' reply was filed September 23, 2016.

The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30,
2016 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration
(combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat and
power ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, critical
power supply, transportation and marine. In addition, the
Company's microturbines can be used as battery charging generators
for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company was
organized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbine
generators commercially since 1998.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: New Mexico ERB Has 60 Days to File Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, 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 Lead
Plaintiff New Mexico Educational Retirement Board has 60 days to
file a consolidated amended complaint.

On May 27, 2016, Tommy French filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
on behalf of himself and all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016. Two
additional suits were filed shortly thereafter with similar
allegations. On June 9, 2016, The Allan J. and Sherry R. Potts
Living Trust filed a putative class action in the same Court on
behalf of the trust and all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016, and on June
24, 2016, International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District
Council No. 35 Pension Plan filed another putative class action in
the same Court on behalf of itself and all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between August 9, 2011 and May 24,
2016, containing similar allegations. On July 26, 2016, motions
were submitted to the Court for the consolidation of these three
cases, as well as for the appointment of a lead plaintiff.

On September 26, 2016, the Court granted the motion, consolidated
the cases into one action, and appointed the New Mexico
Educational Retirement Board as lead plaintiff and its counsel,
Bernstein Liebhard, as lead counsel. The Court granted the lead
plaintiff 60 days to file a consolidated amended complaint, and
once filed, the Company will file a response.

The previously filed complaints are all based on substantially
similar allegations that certain of the Company's financing
arrangements were obtained through fraud and/or misrepresentation,
and that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
made materially misleading statements to the market by failing to
disclose material information concerning these alleged
misrepresentations, and concerning the supposed involvement by
insiders of the Company in alleged trading in the Company's stock
by a United States senator on the basis of material nonpublic
information. Based on these allegations, these complaints assert
claims for violation of the securities laws and seek a variety of
relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs
and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes these complaints are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., is a real estate investment
trust ("REIT") whose stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange. The Company is the 100% owner of two qualified REIT
subsidiaries, CBL Holdings I, Inc. and CBL Holdings II, Inc. At
September 30, 2016, CBL Holdings I, Inc., the sole general partner
of the Operating Partnership, owned a 1.0% general partner
interest in the Operating Partnership and CBL Holdings II, Inc.
owned an 84.8% limited partner interest for a combined interest
held by the Company of 85.8%.


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses Claims Over PMFG Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has dismissed the Plaintiffs' acquisition-related claims
with prejudice, according to CECO Environmental Corp.'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, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of
100% of PMFG, Inc.'s outstanding common stock for a purchase price
of $136.7 million.

Since the public announcement of the proposed merger on May 4,
2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of
the PMFG board of directors have been named as defendants in three
lawsuits related to the acquisition, which were filed by alleged
stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17,
2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that
also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second
and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been
consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and
collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the
Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the merger failed
to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the related merger agreement,
and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub
I and Merger Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a)
that the PMFG board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the merger with
deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG
to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2)
participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG
board of directors and management are divided, and (3) relying on
financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were
conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided
and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c)
that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed
by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to
enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-
upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of
the merger agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs
and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as
other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants
entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit.
In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in
order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the
proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court
approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the
settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the
decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement
and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such
claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not
affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is
expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also
resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the
plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non-
jury trial on August 15, 2016.  On May 11, 2016, the Court entered
an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and
setting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would consider
whether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposed
settlement.

On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew from the settlement
and filed a notice of dismissal of their claims with prejudice.
On September 2, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' request and
dismissed their claims with prejudice.  The Court retained
jurisdiction to consider any applications for "mootness" based
attorneys' fees and expenses from plaintiffs and/or the counsel
for the objector.  Briefing on the attorneys' fees request is
ongoing.

CECO Environmental Corp. is a diversified global provider of
leading engineered technologies to the environmental, energy, and
fluid handling and filtration industrial segments, targeting
specific niche-focused end markets through an attractive asset-
light business model.  The Company provides a wide spectrum of
products and services including dampers & diverters, cyclonic
technology, thermal oxidizers, separation and filtration systems,
selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic
reduction systems, scrubbers, dampers and silencers, exhaust
systems, fluid handling equipment and plant engineered services
and engineered design build fabrication.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Has Reached Agreement to Settle Ravenswood Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum 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 it has reached a
tentative agreement to settle the actions related to the
Ravenswood retiree medical benefits.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to
modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in November
2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a
separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century
Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with
respect to the foregoing.

The Company says, "As of the date of this filing, we believe we
have reached a tentative agreement to settle these actions,
subject to entering into a definitive written settlement agreement
among the parties and obtaining court approval after notice to the
class."

"For the quarter ended September 30, 2016, we recognized a
$23,000[,000] liability in the consolidated balance sheets with a
corresponding expense included in Ravenswood charges in the
consolidated statements of operations associated with this
settlement. The tentative agreement currently anticipates that a
$5,000[,000] payment would be made upon the court's final approval
of the settlement agreement and $2,000[,000] annually thereafter
for nine years."

Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminum
with aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the United
States and Iceland.


CHEF'D LLC: Faces "Sprosky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trysha Marie Sprosky, individually and on behalf of other
individuals similarly situated v. Chef'D, LLC and Does 1-10, Case
No. BC643644 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Chef'D, LLC owns and operates a meal delivery store in El Segundo,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


CHINESE-AMERICAN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Dekin Romero, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home
Attendant Program, Inc., and Chinese-American Planning Council,
Inc., Case No. 656348/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage
rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a work week.

The Defendants provide home health care to frail elderly
individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


CITIGROUP: High Court Won't Hear 401(k) Plan Participants' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by
participants in two Citigroup Inc. 401(k) plans that plan
executives breached their fiduciary duties by failing to place
limits on investments in a company stock fund during the financial
crisis of 2008.

The Supreme Court, without comment, posted its decision on
Dec. 5. Attorneys for the participants, in the case of Muehlgay et
al. vs. Citigroup Inc. et al., filed a petition with the court in
August seeking a hearing.

The participants were appealing a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in May, which supported previous decisions by a
U.S. District Court in New York to dismiss the complaints.

In May 2015 and again in July 2015, District Court Judge John G.
Koeltl dismissed complaints by participants in a class-action
suit, who alleged plan executives and corporate executives
violated their fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs had argued that Citigroup's involvement in the subprime
mortgage market caused "significant losses and insufficient
capital to absorb those losses," according to court documents.
They alleged that such actions subsequently harmed Citigroup's
stock price.

They said that by January 2008 -- the start of the class-action
claim period -- the defendants "should have been aware" through
public and internal "warning flags" that Citigroup stock was an
"imprudent" investment for 401(k) plan participants, according to
court documents.

The District Court judge dismissed the complaints because the suit
was filed after the ERISA statute of limitations. The judge also
ruled that the participants' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were
"without merit" because they "failed to show any special
circumstances that would have made it imprudent" for defendants to
allow participants to continue investing in Citigroup stock.


CITY OF MANSFIELD: Davis et al. Seek to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Davis, Thayne Telquist, Joshua Frech, Joseph Gladden,
Freeman Nixon, Justin Cikity, Travis Stantz, Heath Underwood,
Heather Swinehart, Christopher Brunk, Michael Haines, Paul Webb,
Ronald Barnes, Charles Hamilton, Jack Shay, Shermon Bond, Nolan
Goodman, Paul Garneret, Marijan E. Grogoza, John Meyer, Ronald
Packer, James Reed, Philip Messer c/o Michael Piotrowski, Esq.,
2721 Manchester Road, Akron OH 44319, Plaintiffs, v. City of
Mansfield, Ohio c/o Timothy Theaker, Mayor 30 North Diamond Street
Mansfield OH 44902 and Lori A. Cope, in her official capacity as
Safety-Service Director c/o City of Mansfield 30 North Diamond
Street Mansfield OH 44902, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02974
(N.D. Ohio, December 12, 2016), was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated to require Defendants to pay back
wages allegedly owed to Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant City of Mansfield is a municipal corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael W. Piotrowski, Esq.
     2721 Manchester Road
     Akron OH 44319
     Phone: (330) 753-7080
     Fax: (330) 753-8955
     E-mail: ohiofoplawyer@me.com

        - and -

     Gwen Callender, Esq.
     222 East Town Street
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 224-5700
     Fax: (614) 224-5775
     E-mail: gcallender@fopohio.org


COMPREHENSIVE KIDS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Knights, Lindsay Reiss and Katherine Zapatier, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Comprehensive
Kids Developmental School and Nathan Sklar, Case No. 160293/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay employees at their straight or
agreed upon rate for all wages due.

Comprehensive Kids Developmental School operates a school located
at 383 Grand Street, New York, New York 10002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105


CTC GROUP: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Aguilar, Maria Ibarra, and Guadalupe Perez, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated v. CTC Group d/b/a
Doubletree By Hilton Torrance, Recana LLC, Rare Staffing
Corporation, Rosalva Lopez, Francisco Franco, and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. BC643304 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 8, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages,
prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
appropriate relief pursuant to the California Labor Code.

CTC Group operates Doubletree By Hilton Torrance hotel located at
21333 Hawthorne Blvd, Torrance, CA 90503, USA.

Recana LLC is a provider of outsourced professional resources.

Rare Staffing Corporation owns and operates a staffing agency in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Srourian, Esq.
      SROURIAN LAW FIRM
      3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (310) 601-3131
      Facsimile: (310)388-8444
      E-mail: Daniel@slfla.com


CTI BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTI BioPharma Corp. continues to defend a consolidated securities
litigation pending in Washington, 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 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits
entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16-
216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York and the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington,
respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired
the Company's securities pursuant to its September 24, 2015 public
offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. The
complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers for violations of the
federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September
24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including
with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.
Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public
disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or
omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the
clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.

On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court
on May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion
to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order
to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016,
the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being
captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL.

On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling
order setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a
consolidated class action complaint and deadlines for briefing
defendants' motion to dismiss, with briefing concluding Feb. 22,
2016. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimate
of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made
at this time and, as such, the Company has not recorded an accrual
for any possible loss.

CTI BioPharma Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted
therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer
a unique benefit to patients and health care providers.


CVS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Barchock" ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a
purported class action lawsuit filed by Mary Barchock, et al.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, 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 February 2016, an ERISA class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and
Galliard Capital Management, Inc., in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island by Mary Barchock, Thomas
Wasecko, and Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k)
Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the
"Plan"), and participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs
and the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund
in short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. The
Company has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company.  The
Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of
pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and
administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services,
and mail order.  The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the
CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM),
CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R),
Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R)
Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names.


CVS HEALTH: Must Defend Against Sheet Metal Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit
Fund; and Indiana Carpenters Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Health
Corporation, Defendant, C.A. No. 16-046 S (D. R.I.), Chief
District Judge denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Certify Question to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to both motions and Defendant filed
Replies.

Judge Smith said denial of CVS's Motion to Dismiss is without
prejudice to CVS raising its arguments concerning claims under
state laws other than Indiana at the class certification stage.

A copy of the Court's Nov. 1 decision is available at
https://is.gd/WBHBYB from Leagle.com.

CVS Health 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 February 2016, two third-party
payors filed a similar putative class action, Sheet Metal Workers
Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp., against
the Company in the United States District Court for the District
of Rhode Island.  The Company's motion to dismiss the suit has
been denied.

In August 2016, a similar complaint was filed by another third-
party payor, Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corp.,
also in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island. The Company likewise intends to defend this action.  CVS
Health filed its answer to this suit on Nov. 15.

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company.  The
Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of
pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and
administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services,
and mail order.  The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the
CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM),
CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R),
Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R)
Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names.


CVS HEALTH: Caremark Suit Dismissed Following Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 the Caremark class
action lawsuit was dismissed following approval of a settlement.

Caremark -- the term "Caremark" generally refer to any one or more
pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") subsidiaries of the Company,
as applicable -- was named in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello,
purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of
various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies
that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,
Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,
but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action. The parties have entered into an agreement to
resolve the matter. In connection with this agreement, the Company
contributed a total of $80 million to the settlement fund and
agreed to forego its right to have its insurer continue to
reimburse its related legal fees. The Company had established
reserves related to this matter to fully cover such payments and
the payment was made in the three months ended September 30, 2016.

In August 2016, the court entered final judgment dismissing the
matter and approving the settlement.

The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to
avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation.

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company.  The
Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of
pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and
administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services,
and mail order.  The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the
CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM),
CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R),
Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R)
Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names.


CVS HEALTH: Certification of Customers Class Sought in Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs of a consolidated lawsuit pending in California
move for the certification of a class involving CVS Health
Corporation customers from 11 states, 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 July and September 2015, two related putative class actions,
Corcoran, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., and Podgorny, et al. v. CVS
Health Corp., were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California and the
Northern District of Illinois, respectively. The two cases have
been consolidated in United States District Court in the Northern
District of California. In March 2016, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the Company's first motion to dismiss.

In July 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's partial motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
Discovery is proceeding on the remaining allegations in the third
amended complaint, which alleges that the plaintiffs overpaid for
prescriptions for generic drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. The
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes and common laws of certain states and in
October 2016 Plaintiffs moved for the certification of a class
involving CVS customers from 11 states.

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company.  The
Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of
pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and
administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services,
and mail order.  The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the
CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM),
CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R),
Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R)
Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names.


CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in PBM Antitrust MDL Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Jackson Pharmacy Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
filed in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re Pharmacy
Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation remains pending, CVS Health
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.

Beginning in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed by
pharmacies alleging that various PBMs were violating certain
antitrust laws. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs,
Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. One complaint
named three Caremark entities as defendants, and the other two
complaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the
case against the third Caremark entity was sent to arbitration
based on contract terms between the pharmacies and that entity.
The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request and later
closed by the American Arbitration Association.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originally
filed in that court. The consolidated action is now known as In re
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation.

A motion for class certification filed by the North Jackson
Pharmacy plaintiffs against the Caremark defendants in August 2015
is currently pending.

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

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company.  The
Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of
pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and
administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services,
and mail order.  The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the
CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM),
CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R),
Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R)
Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names.


CVS HEALTH: Discovery Has Commenced in Class Suit vs. Omnicare
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from the 2005 public offering of CVS Health Corporation's
subsidiary, 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 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. The consolidated complaint was filed
against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors
and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market
purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through
July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares of
Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public offering in December
2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive
relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court
remanded the case to the district court.

In October 2016, Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs' third
amended complaint, and discovery commenced.

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company.  The
Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of
pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and
administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services,
and mail order.  The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the
CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM),
CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R),
Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R)
Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names.


DAIMLER: New Jersey Court Dismisses Emissions Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Kreijger, writing for Handelsblatt, reports that the
battle may not be over, but Mercedes-maker Daimler booked an
initial victory on Dec. 6 against customers suing the German
luxury carmaker over diesel emissions.

A New Jersey court dismissed accusation that Daimler had
manipulated emissions values and issued misleading advertising,
news agencies Reuters and DPA reported.  The court, however, said
the plaintiffs could amend the class action suit and re-file it at
a later date. U.S. law firm Hagens Berman, which filed the suit in
February, told DPA it would do so.

Daimler said earlier this year the class actions "are considered
to be without merit."  Lawyers and car owners filed several
lawsuits against the German company after its peer Volkswagen
admitted last year it had rigged 11 million diesel cars, which
emit higher values of toxic nitrogen oxide than U.S. laws allow.


DARPAN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanscrainte" Suit Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SANSCRAINTE, 6060 Maidstone Ct., Westerville OH, 43082, On
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DARPAN MANAGEMENT, INC., c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St.,
2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 and PRAKASH PATEL
c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH
43215 and VIBHAKAR SHAH c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St.,
2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 and DARSHAN SHAH c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt
300 South Second St., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01165-EAS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, December 12, 2016),
challenges Defendants' employee compensation practices as
willfully attempting to circumvent the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are engaged in the hospitality business and in the
performance of related types of activities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
     SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
     The Superior Building
     815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: 440-498-9100
     E-mail: jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

        - and -

     Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
     MCDERMOTT LAW LLC
     11925 Pearl Road, Suite 310
     Strongsville, OH 44136
     Phone: 216-367-9181
     Fax: 440-846-1625
     E-mail: kevin@mcdermottattorney.com


DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Bench Trial in Do Not Call Suit Ends
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the second
phase of the bench trial in the Do Not Call Litigation commenced
on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary
DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United
States Attorney General and several states in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state
statutes and state consumer protection laws.  The plaintiffs
allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-
party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain
telemarketing violations."

"On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state
plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of
approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was
seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could
substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought
by the state plaintiffs).  The plaintiffs were also seeking
injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things,
enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market
or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH
Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain
existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new
independent third-party retailers, except under certain
circumstances.  We also filed a motion for summary judgment,
seeking dismissal of all claims.

"On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect
to the parties' summary judgment motions.  The Court found that
DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with
respect to one claim in the action.  In addition, the Court found
that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with
respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other
things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'s
liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound
telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its
independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the
plaintiffs' motion.  The Court did not issue any injunctive relief
and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages,
ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the
amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial.

"In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it
intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties,
and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as
much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages.  The
plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.
Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network
L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until:
(i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting
organization to perform a review of its call center operations;
(ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a
telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal
plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the
plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C.
implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has
implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting
DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing
calls.  The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if
granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting
customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party
retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court
approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing
activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure
compliance with the TSR.

"The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016
through February 11, 2016.  In closing briefs, the federal
plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in
alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated
that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and
damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts
sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff
indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged
civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition
to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois
and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific
alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the
state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages
award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and
state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns.  Under
the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may
not be imposed.

"On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request
for injunctive relief, and are now seeking, among other things, to
enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market
or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH
Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some or
all existing independent third-party retailers.  The second phase
of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and
concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the
state plaintiffs' claims.

"We may also from time to time be subject to private civil
litigation alleging telemarketing violations.  For example, a
portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the case described above are also
the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina.  Trial in that action is scheduled to commence
on January 9, 2017.

"We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We cannot predict
with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages."

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company.  Its subsidiaries
operate two primary business segments -- Pay-TV and Broadband and
Wireless.


DITECH FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Circeo-Loudon" Case Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
settlement in the case, Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing,
LLC, has final approval.

Ditech Financial had been subject to several putative class action
lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions alleged
that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly received
benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form of
commissions for work not performed, services provided at a reduced
cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actual
cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits asserted
various theories of recovery and sought remedies including
compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages,
return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief.

One such matter was Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et
al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16,
2014. A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in
the Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015 and the settlement
was approved by the court on August 30, 2016.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, all of the defendants
collectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to pay
damages to class members who timely file a claim, administrative
costs to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be
paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial
statements as of September 30, 2016.

The settlement agreement also provides that Ditech Financial and
its subsidiary, Green Tree Insurance Agency, Inc., and their
affiliates will be released from certain claims and may no longer
receive commissions on the placement of certain lender-placed
insurance for a period of five years commencing January 27, 2017.

This settlement resolves all lender-placed insurance class actions
for the relevant period of the class, although the settlement does
not apply to potential individual claims by class members who have
opted out of the proposed settlement.

Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the
Company, is a mortgage banking firm focused primarily on servicing
and originating residential loans, including reverse loans.


DOCUMENT GROUP: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Vaughn, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. The Document Group, Case No. 4:16-cv-03578
(S.D. Tex., December 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, The Document Group provides
printing and litigation support services to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Telephone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Faces "Cosio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel A. Cosio, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Dual Diagnosis Treatment
Center, Inc. d/b/a Sovereign Health of California, and Does 1-10,
Case No. BC643461 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of California Labor Code.

Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. operates four medical
facilities in the State of California -- Los Angeles, Orange
County, Palm Desert, and Rancho San Diego.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit initiated by Michael Davis
remains pending in California, Electronic Arts 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 July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial
court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the case was remanded back to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, where the case is
pending.

Electronic Arts Inc. is a global leader in digital interactive
entertainment.  The Company develops, markets, publishes and
distributes games, content and services that can be played by
consumers on a variety of platforms, which include consoles (such
as the PlayStation from Sony, and the Xbox from Microsoft), PCs,
mobile phones and tablets.  Some of the Company's games are based
on its wholly-owned intellectual property (e.g., Battlefield, Mass
Effect, Need for Speed, The Sims and Plants vs. Zombies), and some
of the Company's games leverage content that it licensed from
others (e.g., FIFA, Madden NFL and Star Wars).


ENERGY TRANSFER: Dieckman's Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that one
lawsuit related to the Regency merger litigation remains pending.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency Merger,
purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency Merger. All Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been
dismissed, although one lawsuit remains pending on appeal.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported
Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of
Regency's common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the Regency Merger breached
the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflicts
committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not
approved in good faith. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and
on March 29, 2016, the Delaware court granted Defendants' motion
and dismissed the lawsuit.

On April 26, 2016, Dieckman filed his Notice of Appeal to the
Supreme Court of Delaware. This appeal is styled Adrian Dieckman
v. Regency GP LP, et al., No. 208, 2016, in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware. Dieckman filed his Opening Brief on June 9,
2016, and Defendants' filed their Answering Brief on July 29,
2016. On August 31, 2016, Dieckman filed his Reply Brief. Oral
argument was scheduled for November 16, 2016 before the Delaware
Supreme Court.


FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Against "Hendley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 8, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit by Chris B. Hendley.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Scott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the
Hendley complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.
Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not in
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such
non-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/or
negative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The
counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek (1) class
certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2)
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all other
class members against the defendants, jointly and severally, for
all damages sustained as a result of wrongdoing, in an amount to
be proven at trial, including interest, and (3) awarding
plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert fees.

The company and/or its respective subsidiaries are vigorously
defending these lawsuits. Given the stage of the complaints and
the claims and issues presented, the company cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits.


FOX ORTEGA: Holds Auction as Part of Premier Cru Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Mcnamara, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that
Berkeley residents stepped into Premier Cru Fine Wines on Dec. 3
expecting to bid on wine left over after the store's owner, Fox
Ortega Enterprises, filed for bankruptcy in January while being
investigated by the FBI for an alleged ponzi scheme.  Instead,
items up for bidding included everything from tapestries to a
George Foreman Grill -- the wine had already been sold for $3.6
million in September.

The Dec. 3 auction was the outcome of a separate settlement
between the court appointed trustee and the building's landlord,
according to the company's attorney Mark Bostick.  The Chapter 7
bankruptcy trustee appointed to the case, Michael Kasola, left all
remaining abandoned property at the combined storefront and
warehouse -- located on University Avenue -- for the landlord to
sell independently as part of the settlement.

The auction was held by Daniel Clar Auctioneers, a commercial
liquidating business hired by the landlord, according to Bostick.

"We've had a very good showing so far," said Daniel Clar
Auctioneers owner Harvey Clar.

Among the various items up for sale were empty bottles of wine
previously used for display in the store's showroom.  One of these
bottles still containing their original wine would be worth
hundreds to upwards of thousands of dollars, said Bay Area wine
retailer David Netzer, who attended the auction.  Mr. Netzer
questioned the legality of auctioning off empty bottles of such
expensive wine because of the high rate of fraud involving the
sale of fine wine bottles filled with cheaper wines at the
original label's price point.

As part of the settlement reached in the Premier Cru class action
lawsuit, the store's entire lot of retail wine was sold to the
highest bidder, Spectrum Wine Auctions.  According to court
documents, the buyer paid $3,550,000 for the collection of primary
bottles -- or those previously paid for by Premier Cru customers.
Unfettered wine -- or bottles without associated sales -- were
sold for a total of $126,000.

Because of the amount of wine remaining at the store and
warehouse, the case was time sensitive, according to Mr. Bostick.
The sale of the wine was authorized by the U.S. bankruptcy court
Aug. 30 and finalized Sept. 2.

"What was challenging was whether the bank system could process
the multiple cases in a timely way," Mr. Bostick said.  "There
were no available funds and 65,000 bottles of wine sitting in a
warehouse -- it takes money to preserve, secure and catalog all
that wine."

Selling bottles in bulk is a typical form of transaction used in
bankruptcy cases involving wine, said Spectrum Wine Auctions
President Jason Boland.

"(It's) best for everyone involved to get their cash as fast as
possible," Mr. Bostick said.

A significant portion of the acquired wine was set to be sold at
an auction held at the Annenberg Space in Los Angeles on Dec. 9,
Mr. Boland said.

The next legal steps involved in the ongoing case are to recover
avoidance claims and any overseas rights to the estate, according
to Mr. Bostick.

The class action suit against Fox Ortega Enterprises totals to
about $70 million in claims, while the sale to Spectrum recovered
about $3.6 million.

"There's a long way to go to make up for the losses," Mr. Bostick
said.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Class Suits Over P&W Acquisition Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against shareholder class action lawsuits related to the
acquisition of Providence and Worcester Railroad Company.

On November 1, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of P&W
for $25.00 per share, or $126.2 million.  Headquartered in
Worcester, Massachusetts, P&W is contiguous with G&W's New England
Central Railroad (NECR) and Connecticut Southern Railroad (CSO).
Rail service is provided by approximately 140 P&W employees with
32 locomotives across 163 miles of owned track and over
approximately 350 miles under track access agreements, including
exclusive freight access over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between
New Haven, Connecticut, and Providence, Rhode Island, and trackage
rights over Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Amtrak and CSX Corp.
between New Haven, Connecticut, and Queens, New York. P&W
interchanges with G&W's NECR and CSO railroads, as well as with
CSX, Norfolk Southern, Pan Am Railways, Pan Am Southern, the
Housatonic Railroad and the New York and Atlantic Railroad, and
also connects to Canadian National and Canadian Pacific via NECR.

P&W serves a diverse mix of aggregates, auto, chemicals, metals
and lumber customers in southeastern New England, handling
approximately 43,000 carloads and intermodal units annually. In
addition, P&W provides rail service to three ports (Providence and
Davisville, Rhode Island and New Haven, Connecticut) and to a
United States Customs bonded intermodal terminal in Worcester,
Massachusetts, that receives inbound intermodal containers for
distribution in New England. P&W also owns approximately 45 acres
of undeveloped waterfront land in East Providence, Rhode Island,
that was initially created as deep water, rail served port through
a $12 million investment. The Company expects to sell this
undeveloped land.

In connection with the acquisition of the P&W, in September 2016,
four shareholder class action lawsuits were commenced in the Rhode
Island Superior Court for Providence County against the Company,
P&W and P&W's directors. Among other matters, the purported class
actions challenge the sale of P&W to the Company, and allege that
the P&W's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the
P&W's shareholders by failing to maximize shareholder value in
approving the merger agreement associated with the acquisition.
The lawsuits also assert that P&W and the Company aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that any
such lawsuit or related lawsuits would be material to the
Company's results of operations or have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or liquidity. The Company,
along with the other defendants, vigorously denies all of the
allegations in the purported class actions.

Genesee & Wyoming Inc. owns or leases 121 freight railroads
worldwide that are organized in 10 operating regions with
approximately 7,200 employees and more than 2,800 customers.


GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in "Mulvaney" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mulvaney v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al., Case No.
9:16-cv-81494 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), appointed on Nov. 18, 2016:

     -- Brian A. Hellings and the Ann Hellings 2016 Trust to
        serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action; and

     -- Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel for the class.

The GEO Group, Inc., is defending a purported shareholder class
action lawsuit commenced by John J. Mulvaney in Florida, 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 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George
C. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R.
Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the
Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that it is brought by
John J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged
class period between March 1, 2012 through and including August
17, 2016. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley
and Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such
other relief as the court may deem proper.

The Company says it intends to take all necessary steps to
vigorously defend itself and Messrs. Zoley and Evans. The Company
has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time,
as a loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable at
this preliminary stage of the lawsuit.

The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a fully-integrated
real estate investment trust specializing in the ownership,
leasing and management of correctional, detention and reentry
facilities and the provision of community-based services and youth
services in the United States, Australia, South Africa and the
United Kingdom. The Company owns, leases and operates a broad
range of correctional and detention facilities including maximum,
medium and minimum security prisons, immigration detention
centers, minimum security detention centers, as well as community
based reentry facilities and offers an expanded delivery of
offender rehabilitation services under its 'GEO Continuum of Care'
platform.


GNC HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarraf Gentile LLP on Dec. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against GNC Holdings, Inc. ("GNC" or the "Company")
( NYSE : GNC ) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Martin v. GNC
Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01522.  The complaint alleges
that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
and/or omitted adverse information about the Company's business
and prospects.

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

If you are a current Company shareholder and want to discuss your
legal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contact
Joseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP (telephone: 516-699-8890,
extension 12; e-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com).


GOLDEN KRUST: "Acevedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Acevedo, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery, Inc., Case
No. 160234/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery, Inc. owns and operates a Caribbean
cuisine fast food chain in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

GOODRICH CORPORATION: Sued Over Bargaining Agreement Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Tucker, Stephen Campbell, James Hensley, Allen Norton, Danny
Johnson, Scott Robertson, Stephen Hickerson, Brandon Gallagher
Brad Lynn, James Hall, Jamie Crouch, Bradly Primus, James T.
Harper, and James Lusk v. Goodrich Corporation d/b/a United
Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems, United Steel, Paper
And Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial And
Service Workers International Union, and United Steel, Paper And
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial And
Service Workers International Union, Local 6817, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00113 (E.D. Tenn., December 8, 2016), seeks to recover
grievance damages on behalf of similarly situated employees, as a
result of the Defendants' practice of improperly laying Plaintiffs
off by subcontracting work in violation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement between Goodrich Corporation, United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, and Defendant USW, Local
6817.

Goodrich Corporation operates an aerospace manufacturing company
based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kerry Knox, Esq.
      KERRY KNOX, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      117 South Academy Street
      Murfreesboro, TN 37130
      Telephone: (615) 896-1000


HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Redmon" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEONA REDMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-11263 (N.D. Ill., December 12, 2016), seeks to recoup
overtime wages under pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD. is a collection agency and law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
     CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
     224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 763-6880


HC2 HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by March 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Schuff
International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, is in the discovery
phase, and fact discovery is scheduled to be completed on March
27, 2017.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.  The currently operative
complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender
offer, the individual members of the DBM Global's Board of
Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBM Global,
breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.
The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form
merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would
cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBM Global following
the completion of the tender offer.  The Complaint seeks
rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as
well as attorney's fees and other relief.

The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.
The litigation is currently in the discovery phase, and fact
discovery is scheduled to be completed on March 27, 2017. Trial is
scheduled for March 12-15, 2018.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend our interests
vigorously," the Company said.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company which seeks to
acquire and grow attractive businesses that the Company believes
can generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive
returns. While the Company generally intends to acquire
controlling equity interests in its operating subsidiaries, the
Company also invests to a more limited extent in a variety of debt
instruments or noncontrolling equity interest positions. HC2's
common stock trades on the NYSE MKT LLC under the symbol "HCHC".


HERTZ CORP: Awaits Decision in Parent's Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation awaits ruling on motions to dismiss filed in
the matter titled 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
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.

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, we are
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.

The Hertz Corporation 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 operates its
vehicle rental business primarily through the Hertz, Dollar and
Thrifty brands from company-owned, licensee and franchisee
locations in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe,
Latin America, the Middle East and New Zealand. Through its Donlen
subsidiary, Hertz provides vehicle leasing and fleet management
services.


HERTZ CORP: Awaits Ruling From Ninth Circuit in "Sobel" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation awaits decision on its appeal from a final
judgment entered in the lawsuit initiated 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.

The Hertz Corporation 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 operates its
vehicle rental business primarily through the Hertz, Dollar and
Thrifty brands from company-owned, licensee and franchisee
locations in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe,
Latin America, the Middle East and New Zealand. Through its Donlen
subsidiary, Hertz provides vehicle leasing and fleet management
services.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits January 24 Trial in "Powell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated awaits trial in the lawsuit
captioned Powell v. Huntington National Bank, which is currently
set for January 24, 2017, 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.

Huntington is a defendant in a putative class action filed on
October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia
state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia
mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in
violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs
seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and
attorney's fees. Huntington removed the case to federal court,
answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is
preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to
Huntington. Following further briefing by the parties, the federal
district court denied Huntington's motion for judgment on the
pleadings on September 26, 2014.

On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Huntington's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district
court's decision. The matter was briefed and oral argument held,
but after the oral argument, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the
appeal as improvidently granted and remanded the case back to the
district court for further proceedings. The matter is moving
forward in the trial court and Huntington has filed an early
motion for summary judgment. The discovery stay has been lifted,
and the parties have engaged in discovery. Trial is now set for
January 24, 2017.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified
regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966
and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington
National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the
financial needs of its customers.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking
services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,
recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
insurance service programs, and other financial products and
services.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated awaits approval of a settlement
to resolve merger-related lawsuits filed in federal courts in
Ohio, 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 16, 2016, Huntington completed its acquisition of
FirstMerit Corporation in a stock and cash transaction valued at
approximately $3.7 billion. FirstMerit Corporation was a
diversified financial services company headquartered in Akron,
Ohio, with operations in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and
Pennsylvania.

Huntington is a defendant in five lawsuits filed in February and
March of 2016 in state and federal courts in Ohio relating to the
FirstMerit merger. The plaintiffs in each case are FirstMerit
shareholders and have filed class action and derivative claims
seeking to enjoin the merger. The plaintiffs also claim that the
registration statement filed regarding the merger contained
material omissions and/or misrepresentations and seek the filing
of a revised registration statement, as well as money damages.
Specifically as to Huntington, the plaintiffs claim Huntington
aided and abetted in alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
FirstMerit board of directors in approving the merger, and in one
complaint, allege that Huntington had direct involvement in making
omissions and/or misrepresentations in the registration statement.
Huntington is preparing its defense to the complaints. The state
court cases have been consolidated and stayed pending the outcome
of the federal court cases, and plaintiffs' motion for expedited
discovery was denied. The federal court cases have been
consolidated and the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on
numerous grounds. The court stayed discovery pending the outcome
of the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to delay
the shareholder vote scheduled for June 13, 2016 on the basis that
supplemental disclosures should be provided to the shareholders. A
hearing took place on the preliminary injunction motion for
Friday, June 10.

The parties in the federal court cases have entered into a
tentative settlement. The defendants made agreed supplemental
disclosures in advance of the shareholder vote in exchange for
which plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their preliminary injunction
motion and agreed to a release of all claims in the federal and
state actions. The parties have jointly moved for approval of the
settlement by the federal court.

The plaintiffs in the state court cases did not join in the
settlement, and one of them filed a motion to be appointed the
lead plaintiff in the state cases, which the federal court has
denied. Should the settlement be approved, however, the claims in
the state court cases will be released.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified
regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966
and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington
National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the
financial needs of its customers.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking
services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,
recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
insurance service programs, and other financial products and
services.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Unit Appeals Denial in Overdraft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration in a lawsuit over overdraft fees, Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated 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.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit. The complaints were brought as
putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained
a checking account at FirstMerit and who incurred one or more
overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit
transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County
Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11,
2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages,
disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest,
injunctive relief, and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial
court issued an order certifying a proposed class and FirstMerit
appealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.

In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed
in part and reversed in part the trial court's class certification
order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition.
The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction.

In August 2014, FirstMerit filed a motion asking the trial court
to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an
arbitration agreement. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated
to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending
motion to stay). An order approving the stipulated revised class
was entered on June 3, 2016. The trial court denied FirstMerit's
motion to compel arbitration in August 2016 and FirstMerit filed a
notice of appeal of that decision.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified
regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966
and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington
National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the
financial needs of its customers.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking
services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,
recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
insurance service programs, and other financial products and
services.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery is
ongoing and trial is set for March 22, 2018, in the Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company
and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed
a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  On February 11, 2016, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to
be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated
or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. Trial
is set for March 22, 2018.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery is
ongoing and no trial has been scheduled in the case, Opana ER(R)
antitrust litigation.

From June 2014 to February 2016, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,
as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer
of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor
(indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation
and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be
bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second
consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to
dismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and the Company has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Trial Yet in Digoxin and Doxycycline Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that trial has not
yet been scheduled in the case, In re Generic Digoxin and
Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation.

From March 2016 to October 2016, 21 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare
Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health
and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel
ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re
Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation". No trial
date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: AWP Actions in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that two AWP
actions remain stayed.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan
and others similarly situated filed a class action against several
generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and
others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case has
since been removed to federal court in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the
suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third
party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain
generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under
the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17,
2016, this case was stayed.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a
lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory
judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution
of the federal court action.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


INCONTACT INC: Reached MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
inContact, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and
the Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling the
consolidated class action.

On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v.
inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the Third
Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the
"Court") naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors
(the "Gordon Action"). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Gordon Action on July 1, 2016.

On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact,
Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Court
naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the
"Stern Action").

On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact.
Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Court
naming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent and
Merger Subsidiary (the "Davis Action").  On July 14, 2016 the
Court ordered the three actions consolidated and designated the
amended complaint in the Gordon action as the operative complaint.

The consolidated action purports to be a class action brought by
shareholders alleging that inContact's Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement with NICE
pursuant to which the Company would be acquired as a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of NICE.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind
the transaction in the event it is consummated.

Without admitting to any fault, inContact and the Board of
Directors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated action. The parties
are conducting confirmatory discovery prior to finalizing the
settlement.

inContact, Inc. provides cloud contact center software solutions
through its inContact(R) Customer Interaction Cloud, an advanced
contact handling and performance management software application.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982
(D.N.J.), remains pending, Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR,
as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms,
and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November
5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by
the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with
certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive
the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of
the purported class to purchase shares of the Company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements
of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary
to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleged
that Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange
Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs.

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


JAY PEAK: Class Action Attorneys Seek Brokerage Records
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan Keays, writing for VT Digger, reports that attorneys in a
class-action lawsuit against Jay Peak owner Ariel Quiros are
seeking electronic records from his former son-in-law who managed
accounts at the brokerage firm Quiros allegedly used to defraud
investors.

"After months of ineffective and intermittent back and forth,
Plaintiffs still lack basic information necessary to move
discovery along in this case," Thomas Tucker Ronzetti, the
attorney for the investors in the class-action lawsuit, wrote in a
recent motion.

He later added, "Plaintiffs have been patient and reasonable with
Joel Burstein, but to no avail."

The class-action case, led by Brazilian investor Alexander
Daccache, asks a judge to "compel" attorneys for Mr. Burstein to
conduct electronic searches for terms related to the case for his
personal devices, such as iPads and iPhones, as well as any cloud
storage system he may have used.

Attorneys for the investors and lawyers for Mr. Burstein, account
manager for his father-in-law at Raymond James branch in Florida,
have been going back and forth over what the search terms related
to the case should be as well as how to go about the search. There
are also questions whether the devices from several years ago are
even available.

"Burstein has also refused to state whether certain devices will
be searched for responsive ESI (electronically stored
information)," Mr. Ronzetti wrote, "verify whether ESI searches
will cover cloud storage services, or confirm information about
device contents that may otherwise be available to him and thus
should be included in his ESI searches."

Also, the debate between the parties involves the intricacies of
Boolean searches and how to conduct them.  Boolean searches allow
a user to broaden, or limit a search, by combining terms with
words such as "and, "or," or "not."

"Plaintiffs promptly addressed counsel's questions, defined the
referenced Boolean operators, and explained that depending on the
system used to conduct the search the term 'ari' may not pick up
'ariel,'" Mr. Ronzetti wrote.

The latest motion by the attorneys for the investors asks a judge
to set a Dec. 30 deadline for lawyers for Mr. Burstein to conduct
the searches and provide whatever relevant information they find.

Mr. Burstein was a manager of a Coral Gables, Florida, branch of
Raymond James where Quiros kept Jay Peak investor funds.  Those
funds were raised through the EB-5 immigrant investor program and
meant for development projects in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom,
including hotels at Jay Peak and Burke Mountain.

Federal and state lawsuits brought in April allege Mr. Quiros,
owner of Q Resorts, a holding company that includes Jay Peak, and
William Stenger, Jay Peak's former CEO, misused $200 million
raised through EB-5 visa program, operating a "Ponzi-like" scheme.

The Daccache lawsuit followed, with attorneys for investors
alleging that Mr. Quiros "orchestrated" the fraud, while
Mr. Stenger, Burstein and Raymond James "enabled" the alleged
fraud.

The bank, according to the Daccache lawsuit, allowed Mr. Quiros to
create "an intricate web of transfers among various accounts at
Raymond James to disguise the fact that most of the seven projects
were either over budget or experiencing shortfalls."

These shortfalls were due in large part to Mr. Quiros allegedly
taking millions of dollars of investor money for his own use, the
lawsuit states.

Since the filing of the Daccache lawsuit, attorneys for the
investors have submitted several motions in recent months seeking
records from several parties related to the case, including
Raymond James and Jong Weon (Alex) Choi, a longtime business
associate of Quiros.

Mr. Choi served as a principal officer for AnC Bio Korea.  That
company transferred intellectual property rights to AnC Bio
Vermont, a company owned by Mr. Stenger, Mr. Quiros and
Mr. Quiros' son, Ary. The construction and operation of the
proposed $110 million biotech facility in Newport never
materialized.

Attorneys for the investors are also seeking financial records
from Raymond James for accounts associated with Ary Quiros and
Nicole Quiros, Ariel Quiros' daughter.

Nicole Quiros, an accountant, had been married during the time of
the alleged fraud to Burstein.  Ary Quiros had operated Q Burke
Mountain Resort in Vermont until it was later seized by federal
regulators when they filed their lawsuit in April.


J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification in Paldo Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Northern
District of Illinois has not yet addressed class certification in
the lawsuit filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former
employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions.

The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and
conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of
Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was
added.

On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary
judgment on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions are
pending. The Northern District of Illinois has not yet addressed
class certification.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division,
the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,
from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual
property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud
Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily
focuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital
Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming,
entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers and
influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space.


J2 GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Early 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Los Angeles
Superior Court will consider final approval of the settlement in
the case brought by LEO and Dancel in early 2017.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among
other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself
and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class
action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles
Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three
California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common
law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and
consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015,
a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff.

On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed
pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the
parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative
class-based settlement.

On September 12, 2016, the Los Angeles Superior Court certified
the class for settlement purposes only and preliminary approved
the settlement. The court will consider final approval of the
settlement in early 2017.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division,
the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,
from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual
property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud
Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily
focuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital
Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming,
entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers and
influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in a class action
lawsuit remains pending.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants").

On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned
Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON).
The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated
on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch.

The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First
Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an
undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to
replead.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and
it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended
Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and
public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim
with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly
knew it was unable to meet was eliminated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was
granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")
was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on
July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a
decision has not been issued.

"The Company believes that the claims in the Class Action are
without merit, and it intends to defend vigorously against them.
However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, the
Company cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse
decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition or results of operations,"
the Company said.


K & R TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcio D. Varela, Francisco J. Vera, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. K & R Transportation, LLC, and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC643325 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay wages, pay overtime, and provide meal and rest breaks to
its employee drivers and crewmembers.

The Defendants provide trucking and transportation services to and
from ports in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      HAFFNER LAW PC
      445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 514-5681
      Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
      E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits vs. D&Os Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that four
purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.

The Company said, "Three of these actions have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131 filed on
August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016 and
Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-
cv-06233 on August 5, 2016."

"The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25,
2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our
stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016.

"On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The Karth complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of stockholders who purchased our stock between September
2, 2013 and August 1, 2016.

"Each complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements concerning the Company and its
business operations and future prospects in light of the August 1,
2016 announcement of an imminent interruption in our supply of
Auryxia. Each complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits. There is no assurance, however,
that we or the other defendants will be successful in our defense
of either of these lawsuits or that insurance will be available or
adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation
costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the
outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this
time. A resolution of these lawsuits adverse to us or the other
defendants, however, could have a material effect on our financial
position and results of operations in the period in which the
particular lawsuit is resolved."


KOREA TIMES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kim" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kon J. Kim, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
v. The Korea Times of Los Angeles, Inc., The Korea Times of San
Francisco, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No.
BC643503 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay the minimum wage and overtime
wage rate in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Korea Times of Los Angeles, Inc. and The Korea Times of San
Francisco, Inc. are publishers of Korean language Monday-Saturday
newspaper in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
      Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
      Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
      550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 547-5200
      Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
      E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
              mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
              armand.falveylaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Lovretovich, Esq.
      David F. Tibor, Esq.
      JML LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21052 Oxnard Street
      Woodland Hills, CA 913567
      Telephone: (818)610-8800
      Facsimile: (818)610-3030
      E-mail: jml@jmllaw.com
              david@jmllaw.com


KREATION ORGANIC: "Kaputsos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Kaputsos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kreation Organic, Inc. d/b/a Kreation & 3rd Juice,
d/b/a Kreation & 3rd Kafe, Kreation & 1023 Montana, Inc., Kreation
& 1202 Abbott Kinney  Inc., Bebegol Inc., Marjan Sarshar and
Farzin Madjidi, and Does 10-20, inclusive, BC643229 (Cal. Super.
Ct., December 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
penalties under California Business and Professions Code.

The Defendants operate a family of cafes and juiceries throughout
the Los Angeles area specializing in organic food and juices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lauren Teukolsky, Esq.
      Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
      BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
      733 Marsh Street, Ste. 110
      San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
      Telephone: (805) 322-3412
      Facsimile: (805) 322-3413.
      E-mail: lt@bbemploymentlaw.com
              hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchasers Win Bid to Sanction Objector
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted
a motion for sanctions against an objector filed by indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs in the polyurethane foam products
litigation, according to Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's Nov. 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 reached a tentative settlement in the U.S.
Indirect Class Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an
amount not materially different from the amount previously accrued
for this claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases,
but settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court
preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The
full settlement amount was paid into escrow in the third quarter
of 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on
December 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the
settlement."

Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order approving
the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On
April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to post an appeal
bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors filed a motion to
reconsider or stay the bond order, which the Court denied on May
12, 2016. Subsequently, three of the five objectors voluntarily
dismissed their appeals. On June 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit
dismissed the remaining two appeals, one for failure to post an
appeal bond, and the other because it was untimely filed.

One of the two objectors filed a petition for rehearing en banc
(requesting that all judges rather than the normal 3 rule on the
appeal) on June 29, 2016. That petition was denied on September
27, 2016 and, on October 3, 2016, the Sixth Circuit stated that it
would take no action on the objector's request to stay its ruling
or any mandate. On September 27, 2016, the indirect purchaser
class plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the objector
in District Court, which was granted on October 24, 2016.

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and
member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces
a wide range of engineered components and products found in many
homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes.  The
Company makes components that are often hidden within, but
integral to, its customers' products.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Must Attend Mediation in Polyurethane Foam MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ordered
all parties in the indirect purchaser class action in the
polyurethane foam antitrust multidistrict litigation to attend
non-binding mediation, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, 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, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
brought damages claims under various states' antitrust and
consumer protection statutes, and were seeking three times an
amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also sought attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations."

The Company denied all allegations. The Ohio Court ordered all
parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their
choosing.

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and
member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces
a wide range of engineered components and products found in many
homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes.  The
Company makes components that are often hidden within, but
integral to, its customers' products.


LEPAGE BAKERIES: Reached $1.25MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 8, 2016, that Flowers Foods'
subsidiary, Lepage Bakeries, on November 8, 2016, reached an
agreement to settle a lawsuit seeking class action treatment
(Bokanoski et al. v. Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC and CK Sales
Co., LLC), originally filed by Bart Bokanoski and certain other
plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on January 6, 2015, for $1.25 million, including
attorneys' fees. The settlement also includes certain non-economic
terms which are intended to strengthen and enhance the independent
contractor model. This agreement, which includes 49 territories,
is subject to court approval.


LICE TROOPERS: Faces "Hidalgo" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOLA HIDALGO and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. LICE TROOPERS INC. and ARIE HAREL, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-25150-DLG (S.D. Fla., December 12, 2016), seeks
to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant LICE TROOPERS INC. provides head lice removal services
in several lice treatment centers, located throughout Miami-Dade
County areas. Defendant also provides in home inspections and
treatment services, as well as school and camp screenings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT: Sued in Ill. Over Excessive Record Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin P. Friedman, as trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman
Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., Case No.
2016CH15920 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all who, when selling their condominium units, were
effectively compelled to pay the Defendant's unreasonable and
excessive fees to obtain copies of certain records that the
Illinois Condominium Property Act requires condominium sellers to
provide upon a condominium purchaser's demand.

Lieberman Management Services, Inc. owns and operates a
condominium association management company with its principal
place of business at 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1550, Chicago, IL
60606.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Karl L. Felbinger, Esq.
      JEFFREY C. BLUMENTHAL CHARTERED
      2970 Maria A venue, Suite #223
      Northbrook, IL 60062
      Telephone: (847) 498-3220
      Facsimile: (847) 498-3221
      E-mail: Jeffrey@jcblawyer.com
              kfelbinger@gmail.com

         - and -

      Charles R. Franklin, Esq.
      Michael A. Albert, Esq.
      FRANKLIN LAW GROUP
      181 Waukegan Rd., Suite 205
      Northfield, IL 60093-2700
      Telephone: (847) 716-2380
      Facsimile: (847) 716-2390
      E-mail: cfranklin@charlesfranklinlaw.com
              malbert@charlesfranklinlaw.com

LIONS GATE: Court Won't Rush Proceedings in Starz Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings filed in the
consolidated lawsuit titled In re Starz Stockholder Litigation,
according to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.'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, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for a
combination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4
billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger,
Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock,
pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will be
converted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate
Class A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of
Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven 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; City of Providence v. Starz,
et al., C.A. No. 12604; and Teamsters Local 170 Pension Fund v.
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 12705. The
complaints name as defendants the members of the board of
directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as Lions
Gate and Merger Sub. Some of the complaints also name as
defendants Starz, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The
Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop Investments,
LLC ("Hilltop"), Dr. Rachesky and LionTree. The complaints allege,
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; that Dr.
Malone (and, in one action, Mr. Bennett) is a controlling
stockholder who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starz
stockholders in connection with the merger (and, in certain of the
actions, by entering into the exchange agreement); and that some
or all of Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, The Tracey L. Neal Trust
A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop, and
LionTree aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. Some
or all of the complaints seek, among other relief, rescission of
the proposed merger, an injunction to prevent the merger from
proceeding, a judgment declaring the exchange agreement is invalid
and void, damages, and/or attorneys' fees.

The actions have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in
the consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action
complaint on August 16, 2016. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs in
the consolidated action filed a motion for expedited proceedings.
On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a premier next generation global
content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, international distribution and
sales, branded channel platforms, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment.


LIONS GATE: Faces "Gross" Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is facing a merger-related
stockholder class action lawsuit in Colorado, 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 June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for a
combination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4
billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger,
Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock,
pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will be
converted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate
Class A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of
Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement.

On August 9, 2016, a 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.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a premier next generation global
content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, international distribution and
sales, branded channel platforms, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment.


LIONS GATE: "Levy" Suit in New York Challenges Merger With Starz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is facing a merger-related putative
class action lawsuit commenced in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York for the County of Nassau, 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, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for a
combination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4
billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger,
Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock,
pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will be
converted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate
Class A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of
Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et
al., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendants
Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger,
and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors
failed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 in
connection with the proposed merger. Defendants believe that the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend the actions
vigorously.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a premier next generation global
content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, international distribution and
sales, branded channel platforms, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: New York Class Action at Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit in New York is at a preliminary stage.

On March 11, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento
("Mr. Vento"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr.
Gordo"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company and
Messrs. Vento and Gordo made false and misleading statements
regarding the financial performance and guidance during the
alleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The
complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court
deems proper.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against it and the
Company does not believe that the outcome of this legal proceeding
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Because the
case is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate the
likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if
any.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries is a cloud
communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
MainSource Financial Group, Inc., awaits approval of its
settlement to resolve merger-related lawsuits, 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 20, 2016, the Company acquired 100% of the outstanding
common shares of Cheviot Financial Corp. ("Cheviot") and its
subsidiary Cheviot Savings Bank in exchange for stock and cash.

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging the
proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its directors,
and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These actions are
captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15, 2016); and (2) Stephen
Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case No. A1600936 (filed
February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions"). On February 29,
2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On March 24,
2016, the court consolidated the actions under Raymond J.
Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359
(collectively, the "Actions").

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the directors of Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of
due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to the
stockholders of Cheviot, that the consideration to be received by
the stockholders is inadequate and undervalues Cheviot, that the
Merger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices that
purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other
bidders from making successful competing offers for Cheviot, that
the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of
the directors of Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and
pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the Merger
Agreement involves conflicts of interest. The complaint further
alleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Cheviot. The
amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the registration
statement on Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connection
with the Merger, provides materially misleading and incomplete
information rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to make
an informed decision with respect to the Merger.

On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the
settlement of the Actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU
is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Cheviot's
stockholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot
challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith.  The terms of the
settlement were disclosed to former Cheviot stockholders pursuant
to a Notice mailed on September 27, 2016.  The court is scheduled
to consider the final settlement at a hearing to be held on
December 2, 2016.

The Company does not anticipate a material financial impact as a
result of the Actions, the MOU, or the settlement.

MainSource Financial Group, Inc., is a financial holding company
whose principal activity is the ownership and management of its
subsidiary bank, MainSource Bank headquartered in Greensburg,
Indiana.  Through its non-bank affiliates, the Company provides
services incidental to the business of banking.


MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Lawyer Responds to Chemo Settlement Objections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cross, writing for Windsor Star, reports that lawyer
Harvey Strosberg is encouraging his clients -- diluted
chemotherapy victims -- to object if they're outraged over the
proposed $2.375-million class-action settlement his firm helped
negotiate.

"They're my clients, I love them, even though they're angry at
me," the prominent Windsor class-action lawyer said, as a Dec. 7
deadline loomed for the 1,202 members of the diluted chemo lawsuit
to either opt out (and sue independently) or submit a letter of
objection.  He said he understands the anger over the meagre size
of the proposed payout, which would amount to as little as $1,500
per victim.  But the evidence simply wasn't there, he said, to
prove that the diluted cancer drugs harmed them.

"If we go to trial, we'll lose and we'll lose badly,"
Mr. Strosberg said.  "We won't get a dime."

He acknowledged the money is "not enough.

"But it's a great settlement because in comparison to nothing,
it's a lot better than nothing."

Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem will decide Jan. 10 whether
to approve the settlement, and Mr. Strosberg said the judge will
take into account the letters of objection.  He may decide to hear
from some of the writers, who are upset not only with the $1.8-
million payout to victims, but also with the $400,000 fee for
lawyers.

"The judge will say it's a reasonable fee or it's not a reasonable
fee, he can say 'I'll not approve the settlement,' and then we'll
be back to square one," Mr. Strosberg said.  "That's his job."

The class-action members, including 290 adult cancer patients from
Windsor, were administered chemo that was mistakenly diluted so
they received seven to 10 per cent less drugs than prescribed. An
expert hired by the Ontario government concluded that the impact
on patients, given the fact these diluted drugs were often
combined with other cancer-killing drugs, was small. There have
been 71 deaths so far out of the 290 Windsor patients.

"We started this action and the science, it dictated the result,
we're not magicians," Mr. Strosberg said.  "We had to get an
expert saying that the reduction in the treatment at 10 per cent
caused people to die or people getting sicker and we couldn't do
that.  The evidence was not there."

He said the anxiety and fear people suffered isn't compensable,
unless it gets to the point where they're diagnosed with a
psychiatric condition. In such a case, the person should probably
opt out of the class action and pursue an individual lawsuit, he
suggested.

Responding to criticism that the lawyers didn't listen to people's
stories, he said they heard many stories from many class members,
but didn't hear from everyone.  "It's counter productive for us to
get everyone's story," he said.

The lawsuit alleges negligence by Mezentco Solutions Inc., better
known as Marchese Hospital Solutions, the drug firm that supplied
several hospitals in Ontario and New Brunswick -- including
Windsor Regional Hospital -- with a premixed intravenous
chemotherapy treatment. The hospitals along with Medbuy, a
consortium set up by hospitals to buy products in higher volumes,
were added to the lawsuit recently.

If the settlement is approved, Medbuy, on behalf of itself and the
hospitals, will together pay half the settlement, with Mezentco
paying the other half. Strosberg said insurance companies will
cover the costs.

"People are angry and upset and rightly so, I understand.  It's
easier to be angry with your lawyer when your lawyer says we'll
lose."


MDC PARTNERS: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit the dismissal of their shareholder class action
lawsuit against MDC Partners Inc., 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 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Firefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative class
action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as
defendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and former
CAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier and co-lead
plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed an amended
complaint, adding two additional defendants, Mitchell Gendel and
Michael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board of Directors.  The
plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleading
statements in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting,
and the Company's internal controls.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 9, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to that
motion on April 8, 2016, and the Company filed a reply brief on
May 9, 2016. By order granted on September 30, 2016, the U.S.
District Court presiding over the case granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety with prejudice.

On November 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal
the U.S. District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

MDC Partners Inc. is one of the fastest-growing and most
influential marketing and communications networks in the world.
The Company's 50+ advertising, public relations, media, branding,
digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible for
some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's
most respected brands.


MDC PARTNERS: "Paniccia" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit initiated by Roberto Paniccia in
Ontario, Canada, remains pending, according to MDC Partners 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 August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford,
Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the
following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former
CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP.  The
Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian
provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation
based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in
the Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose
material facts with respect to the SEC investigation.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend this
suit.  A case management judge has now been appointed but a date
for an initial case conference has not yet been set.

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

MDC Partners Inc. is one of the fastest-growing and most
influential marketing and communications networks in the world.
The Company's 50+ advertising, public relations, media, branding,
digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible for
some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's
most respected brands.


MDL 2371: Appeal in UMS Patent Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that UMS and the j2
Global affiliate's appeal in a multi-district litigation is
pending.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants.

While claims against some defendants have been settled, other
defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-
infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-
suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction.

UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the
Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). The appeal is
pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division,
the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,
from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual
property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud
Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily
focuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital
Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming,
entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers and
influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal From Dismissal of LFR Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their motion for relief
from the dismissal judgment in the lawsuit involving Atmel
Corporation remains pending, Microchip Technology Incorporated
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 March 4, 2014, LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and Jean-Yves Guerrini,
individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees,
filed an action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against the
Company's Atmel subsidiary, the Company's French subsidiary, Atmel
Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's
German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June
2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France
to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation,
more than three years later. The District Court dismissed the case
on August 21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016.

On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
District Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief
from the dismissal judgment.

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

Microchip Technology Incorporated provides specialized
semiconductor products for a wide variety of embedded control
applications.  The Company's manufacturing operations include
wafer fabrication, wafer probe and assembly and test.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Defends Airbag Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated's subsidiary, Atmel Corporation,
continues to defend the consolidated lawsuit styled In re:
Continental Airbag Products Liability 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.

On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division)
against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor
Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The
Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and
Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law
alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased
vehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporating
allegedly defective application specific integrated circuits
manufactured by the Company's Atmel subsidiary between 2006 and
2010), and thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss in
the value of their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs
are seeking, individually and on behalf of a putative class,
unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and other relief.

The Company's Atmel subsidiary intends to contest plaintiffs'
claims vigorously.

Microchip Technology Incorporated provides specialized
semiconductor products for a wide variety of embedded control
applications.  The Company's manufacturing operations include
wafer fabrication, wafer probe and assembly and test.


NAT'L RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reports that a group of
Mississippi Mills residents is suing the National Research Council
for more than $40 million after residential wells were
contaminated by chemicals originating from an NRC fire lab in
their neighbourhood.

It's been almost a year since homeowners living near the fire
safety testing facility on Ramsay Concession Road 8 in Mississippi
Mills were told their water was contaminated and they should stop
drinking it.

The water contained the chemicals often found in firefighting
foams -- chemicals that were tested in the NRC lab.

In July, the NRC confirmed perfluoroalkylated substances, or PFAS,
found in several, nearby residential wells had originated from its
lab.  Health Canada notes that studies on animals show "high
levels of PFAS have been linked with negative health effects . . .
including liver damage and impacts on neurological development."

Lawsuit claims NRC was negligent

Residents dealing with the contamination said they were having
trouble getting answers from the NRC, so they hired Michael
Hebert, an environmental lawyer with Beament, Hebert and
Nicholson.

Mr. Hebert has since filed a statement of claim in what is
expected to become a class-action lawsuit, one that could
eventually include some 70 nearby residents.

The four plaintiffs in the case claim the NRC breached several
environmental protection laws, was negligent in the use, handling,
application, storage and disposal of contaminants and is "strictly
liable for the escape" of those contaminants.

The claim calls for the NRC to "completely eliminate all traces of
contaminants and that the defendant must pay the cost of doing
so."

The $40 million the plaintiffs request in damages is for
"remediation costs, engineering and other professional costs,
financing costs and diminution in value of the properties of the
plaintiffs and the other class members."

The claim also includes $2 million in punitive damages.

None of the claims in the class-action have been tested in court.

NRC yet to file statement of defence

"We had a fair number of people who signed up early on in the
process," said Mr. Hebert.  "We decided the only way to tackle the
problem was to proceed by way of class-action."

Hebert said his office is waiting for the federal government to
file its statement of defence and provide the many documents,
studies and test results his clients and his firm have requested.

"There's so many reports that were done that are missing.  They
have guards guarding the facility.  It's quite secretive -- it has
been to date anyway," said Mr. Hebert, who added that his firm had
asked to take samples when the NRC was carrying out a soil
remediation program on its property, but it was not allowed.

A spokesperson with the NRC told CBC News they've been "informed
of legal action surrounding the National Fire Research Laboratory.
We are in the process of reviewing the claim and will be
responding at the appropriate time."

Residents to get bottled water until at least 2018

But Mr. Hebert said lawyers from the federal justice department
are representing the NRC and have asked for an extension to file a
statement of defence.

Last month, the National Research Council said it will continue
sampling and testing drinking water, maintaining water filtration
systems and providing bottled water to neighbouring residents
until the fall of 2018 at the earliest.

"I know there was a significant period of time that this has been
on-going and the people were only notified and preventative steps
taken as of last December and this facility has been operating
since about 1981," said Mr. Hebert.

"There's so many substances out there that aren't even accounted
for.  It's an important case."


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued over Reverse Mortgage Loan Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glendale Hoggard and Lucy Hoggard, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage d/b/a Champion
Mortgage, Case No. 8895 (D.C. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016),
arises out of Champion's alleged unlawful practice of declaring
reverse mortgage loans in default for failure to return an Annual
Occupancy Certificate and then charging borrowers a monthly fee
for a drive-by occupancy inspection without giving borrowers
notice of the inspection.

Headquartered in Lewisville, Texas, Nationstar Mortgage provides
residential mortgage loan services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq.
      Sophia Goren, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: lcellini@tzlegal.com
              sgoren@tzlegal.com


NESTLE USA: "Ross" Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Meals
------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY ROSS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09563
(S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2016), was filed for the alleged deceptive
practice by Defendant of marketing its Lean Cuisine(R) frozen
meals as having "No Preservatives" when many of them contain
citric acid (2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid), a well-
known preservative commonly used in commercial food and drink
products.

Defendant develops, markets and sells food products under the Lean
Cuisine(R) brand name throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands 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 putative class action
lawsuit filed by Jessica Paree remains stayed in Florida.

On April 15, 2016, Jarden Corporation became a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Newell Brands, as a result of a series of merger
transactions (the "Jarden Acquisition"). The Jarden Acquisition
was effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of December 13, 2015 between the Company, Jarden and two wholly-
owned subsidiaries of the Company. Following the Jarden
Acquisition, the Company was renamed Newell Brands Inc. Jarden is
a leading, global consumer products company with leading brands
such as Yankee Candle(R), Crock-Pot(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr.
Coffee(R), Oster(R), Coleman(R), First Alert(R), Rawlings(R),
Jostens(R), K2(R), Marker(R), Marmot(R), Volkl(R) and many others.

A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E.
Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10,
2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the
individually named director defendants, all of whom were directors
of Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also named
as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden
stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the
process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with
the Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of its
subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further
alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action
pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy
statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material
information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in
the merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certain
information related to the financial analyses performed by
Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger
transactions, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
Jarden transaction is consummated, an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court that
Jarden's individual board members account for all damages
allegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing.

On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to
Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the
outcome of the Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an order
staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016, and the case remains
stayed at this time, per the parties' request.

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

Newell Brands Inc., formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc., is a
global marketer of consumer and commercial products that help
people get more out of life every day.  The Company's products are
marketed under a strong portfolio of leading brands, including
Paper Mate(R), Sharpie(R), Dymo(R), EXPO(R), Parker(R),
Elmer's(R), Coleman(R), Jostens(R), Marmot(R), Rawlings(R),
Irwin(R), Lenox(R), Oster(R), Sunbeam(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr.
Coffee(R), Rubbermaid Commercial Products(R), Graco(R), Baby
Jogger(R), NUK(R), Calphalon(R), Rubbermaid(R), Contigo(R), First
Alert(R), Waddington and Yankee Candle(R).


NEWELL BRANDS: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Hirsch" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. and its subsidiaries have been voluntarily
dismissed from the purported class action lawsuit filed by Vincent
A. Hirsch, 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 15, 2016, Jarden Corporation became a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Newell Brands, as a result of a series of merger
transactions (the "Jarden Acquisition"). The Jarden Acquisition
was effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of December 13, 2015 between the Company, Jarden and two wholly-
owned subsidiaries of the Company. Following the Jarden
Acquisition, the Company was renamed Newell Brands Inc. Jarden is
a leading, global consumer products company with leading brands
such as Yankee Candle(R), Crock-Pot(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr.
Coffee(R), Oster(R), Coleman(R), First Alert(R), Rawlings(R),
Jostens(R), K2(R), Marker(R), Marmot(R), Volkl(R) and many others.

A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E.
Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross,
Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros
L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF
Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-
CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf
of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director
defendants, who were directors of Jarden. The Company and its
subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp.
II were also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims
under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 14a-9 against all
defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint
proxy/prospectus of the Company and Jarden concerning the proposed
merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certain
information.

In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet,
pursuant to which the Company added certain disclosures to its
Registration Statement on Form S-4. Thereafter, on July 19, 2016,
the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, and the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel contemporaneously filed an Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action
Settlement.  That motion was later withdrawn, and lead counsel has
filed a motion to appoint new lead counsel. The Company and its
subsidiaries have subsequently been voluntarily dismissed from the
action. The action remains pending against the individual
defendants.

Newell Brands Inc., formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc., is a
global marketer of consumer and commercial products that help
people get more out of life every day.  The Company's products are
marketed under a strong portfolio of leading brands, including
Paper Mate(R), Sharpie(R), Dymo(R), EXPO(R), Parker(R),
Elmer's(R), Coleman(R), Jostens(R), Marmot(R), Rawlings(R),
Irwin(R), Lenox(R), Oster(R), Sunbeam(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr.
Coffee(R), Rubbermaid Commercial Products(R), Graco(R), Baby
Jogger(R), NUK(R), Calphalon(R), Rubbermaid(R), Contigo(R), First
Alert(R), Waddington and Yankee Candle(R).


NORTHERN OIL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Fries v. Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-06543 (S.D.N.Y.), competing motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff and lead class counsel are before Judge Edgardo
Ramos:

     -- Motion to Appoint Matthew Atkinson and Richard Miller
        as Lead Plaintiff, and

     -- Motion to Appoint Vittorio Franceschi to serve as lead
        plaintiff(s) and approve the selection of lead counsel.

Northern Oil And Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "On August
18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against our company, Michael Reger (our former chief
executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (our chief financial officer
and interim chief executive officer) as defendants.  The complaint
purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class of persons who acquired the company's securities between
March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to recover damages
caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder."

Fries is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      E-mail:  peretz@bgandg.com

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is an
independent energy company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, exploitation, development and production of crude oil
and natural gas properties.  The Company's common stock trades on
the NYSE MKT market under the symbol "NOG".


ORTHOTOUCH: Georgiou Accused of Hijacking Highveld Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that in a most
bizarre turn of events, the Highveld Syndication Action Group
(HSAG) has accused property magnate Nic Georgiou of attempting to
"hijack" an imminent class action suit against him by "buying off"
the six applicants in the case.

These six individuals were representatives of the 7 000 HSAG
investors and their applications to institute a class action
against Georgiou and the application to rescind the Orthotouch
scheme of arrangement was funded by the financial contributions of
their fellow HSAG members.

The HSAG claims in court papers that Georgiou approached the six
individuals and paid them money to settle their claims against him
and Orthotouch.  The six then proceeded in terms of the
transaction to secretly-appointed new attorneys and applied to the
Johannesburg High Court to withdraw their original application.

If this withdrawal application succeeds it will mean the end of
the class action, as the HSAG would not be able to bring a new
application because the prescribed time period to bring such an
application has lapsed.

From the court papers it is not apparent how much Georgiou paid
the six applicants.

HSAG response

In a strongly-worded affidavit Jacques Theron, the HSAG's attorney
of record, says this happened behind the HSAG and legal team's
back and is a "deliberate stratagem" of Georgiou to "thwart the
class action".

"The attempted withdrawal of the application and the aim to
sabotage the class action is not only an offence against the basic
principles and very purpose of a class action, but also against
the legal provisions, as set out in Section 38(c) of the
Constitution of South Africa."

Ms. Theron emphasises that the six individuals were chosen to
merely represent disgruntled investors who wanted to have the
controversial Orthotouch scheme of arrangement in 2014 rescinded
and to institute a class action against Mr. Georgiou.  They were
carefully chosen to represent the other investors and their legal
fees were paid by financial contributions of the 7 000 HSAG
members.

He adds that the six did not know each other and that it is "not a
coincidence" that they went to the same attorney to file their
notice of withdrawal applications.

Ms. Theron also claims that Mr. Georgiou admitted to the HSAG
steering committee that he settled the claims of the six
applicants during a meeting in Mossel Bay, but that he only became
aware of what was going on when the notice of withdrawal was
served.

Moneyweb offered Mr. Georgiou an opportunity to respond to the
allegations, but he had not replied by the time of publishing.

Mr. Georgiou to repay Highveld Syndication 21 and 22 investors

The latest revelations come after the Supreme Court of Appeal
(SCA) denied Mr. Georgiou leave to appeal against a previous
judgment that ordered him to repay investors of the Highveld
Syndication 21 and 22 companies.

These investors signed different contracts with Mr. Georgiou which
contained a buyback clause that was not honoured.
Mr. Georgiou will now have to repay around R30 million to 46
investors and open the door for the other investors in these
schemes to institute similar claims.

Not the first time

This is not the first time Georgiou has approached key individuals
and investors that form part of the HSAG. Earlier this year it
became apparent that Elna Visagie and Herman Lombaard, previously
two of the most active campaigners of the class action and members
of the HSAG, were approached by
Mr. Georgiou and accepted employment at Orthotouch.  They are
apparently earning salaries as high as R100 000 a month.


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Stack, writing for The New York Times, reports that a group
of African-American workers filed a class-action lawsuit in
federal court on Dec. 6 against a nationwide job placement agency
and several of its clients, accusing them of discriminating
against black applicants by favoring Hispanic applicants.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the agency, MVP
Staffing, used a range of discriminatory practices, including code
words for job applicants of different races, to honor the requests
of corporate clients who refused to employ African-Americans in
temporary positions.  The company operates about 60 offices in 38
states.

The suit accuses the company of eight counts of racial
discrimination based on the operations of its office in Cicero,
Ill.  A phone message and an email seeking comment from MVP
Staffing on Dec. 5 were not returned, and a person who answered
the phone on Dec. 6 declined to comment.

The other companies named in the suit are also in the Chicago
area.  They are Personnel Staffing Group, the Segerdahl Group,
Mercury Plastics Inc., Jet Lithocolor, The Penray Companies Inc.,
WestRock Consumer Packaging Group, AGI Media, Lawrence Foods Inc.
and the Blommer Chocolate Company.

Representatives at Mercury, Personnel and WestRock declined to
comment on Dec. 6; the others did not respond to requests.

Joe Sellers, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he believed
that racial discrimination was widespread in the staffing
industry, which connects job seekers with employment that is often
temporary.

"What we have seen in this industry is that this is a more
widespread phenomenon than what we have just found in this case,
with this company," Mr. Sellers said.  "The staffing agencies
follow the requests made by the client companies even if they
happen to be ones that might exclude people based on race."

Mr. Sellers said there were several other anti-discrimination
class-action lawsuits in process against staffing agencies and
their client companies in Illinois.  The agencies "do the bidding
of the employers on whose behalf they are reviewing candidates,"
he said. "It is a process readily susceptible to abuse."

Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the National Employment
Law Project, said the discriminatory practices alleged at staffing
agencies were "a microcosm of the problem that's happening across
our economy."

"Companies have figured out that if they outsource their
recruiting and hiring, and what's often considered to be the messy
parts of their H.R. function, that they can then absolve
themselves of any liability," Ms. Ruckelshaus said.  That hits
low-wage minority workers the hardest because of "entrenched and
persistent discrimination," she said.

Kevin James, 29, one of the named plaintiffs in the suit, said he
had applied for work through MVP on roughly 20 occasions but had
been given a job only once.  He sat in the MVP office waiting in
vain while Hispanic applicants got assignments, he said.

On the one occasion when Mr. James was given a job, he said, he
was sent to a packaging company where supervisors were hostile
toward him, "hovering" over him and other black employees as they
worked.

"It just seemed like a lot of tension, like they didn't really
want me to be there," Mr. James said.  He added that the staff of
the MVP office in Cicero "was mainly Mexicans" and that the
employees were not welcoming toward African-American job seekers.

"I'd say the whole staff was Mexican," he said.  "It was like the
whole thing was built up mainly around Hispanics."

Rosa Ceja, 29, a former dispatcher at MVP's office in Elmwood
Park, Ill., said the company used a system of code words in an
attempt to conceal its preferential treatment of Hispanics.  She
said her work often took her to the Cicero office, where the same
system was in place.

Ms. Ceja said MVP employees referred to African-American and white
job applicants as "guapos," which means "handsome ones" in
Spanish, and to Hispanics as "feos," or "ugly ones."

"They said African-Americans wanted to keep their hands clean and
not get dirty and not work as hard as a Mexican -- that's why they
called them guapos," she said. MVP employees were told that using
the words "black" or "Mexican" instead of the code words,
especially in an email, was a fireable offense.

The code words were in Spanish because "all of the managers" who
refused to hire African-Americans were Hispanic, Ms. Ceja said.
Some would try to conceal their request by saying they wanted only
employees who listened to 107.9 FM, a Spanish-language radio
station in the Chicago area. "That was a code word for us to only
send Mexicans," she said.

The vast majority of Hispanic job applicants served by MVP were in
the United States illegally, Ms. Ceja added, and their
vulnerability made them attractive short-term workers.  "That
makes it harder for them to complain or do anything," she said.
"They are so scared to raise their voice and say, 'Hey, this is
not fair.'"

Ms. Ceja said MVP employees would start the day by separating
Hispanic job applicants from African-Americans.  They would enter
the Hispanic applicants' contact information into a database so
they could be easily reached when jobs opened up.  African-
American applicants rarely received the same treatment, she said:
They were usually instructed to go to an MVP office at dawn to
wait for assignments that rarely came.

When African-Americans were given jobs, they were often marked
"D.N.R." when they returned, short for "do not return" to the
client company, Ms. Ceja said.  Dispatchers who sent African-
Americans to a company that had asked not to be sent black
employees would be reprimanded by their boss, she added.

"If it was 10 Mexicans that would come at 1:30 p.m., and 25
African-Americans that were there at 4:30 a.m. and were waiting to
be sent to work, they would send the Mexicans first," she said.


PMK*BNC: Faces "Vainer" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Interns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandr Vainer and Joscelyn Corporan, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. PMK*BNC, Inc., Case No.
522010/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to properly compensate its interns for
all hours worked between April 1, 2012 and September 1, 2013.

PMK*BNC, Inc. operates an entertainment agency located at 622
Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juno Turner, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

PROGRESSIVE: Auto Body Shops' Class Action Can't Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
John Huetter, writing for RND, reports that some Ohio collision
repairers might have a more difficult time seeking class-action
lawsuits against insurers following a state Appellate Court
ruling.

In Blue Ash Auto et al v. Progressive, a group of collision
repairers had accused the insurer of tortiously interfering with
their business by unilaterally dictating what labor rates and
procedures it'd reimburse.  The auto body shops argued that these
mandates "do not necessarily allow for them to restore an
insured's car to its original, pre-loss condition and that the
limitations violate both Ohio law and Progressive's own insurance
policies," as the Eighth District Court of Appeals summarized the
case.

Progressive, according to the appellate court's summary, said that
it was being competitive and DRP shops did the work under the
terms other shops had criticized. (It should be noted that the DRP
shops get a big perk in exchange for those discounts: Progressive
recommends them to its clients, allowing the repairers to
theoretically recoup some of the costs through volume.)

The shops sought to recoup whatever parts and labor costs they had
to eat to serve Progressive customers and "declaratory relief in
the form of an order requiring Progressive to indemnify them from
any liability arising from their compliance with Progressive's
restrictions."

The Eighth District Appellate Court stressed that it wasn't ruling
on whether or not the auto body shops' case was any good. The
decision applied only to whether the shops met legal tests to
expand the case into a gigantic statewide class of basically any
non-DRP shop that touched a Progressive claim for the past 11
years:

"All Ohio registered auto body repair shops, or registered
individuals, with the exception of those members of Progressive's
Direct Repair Program that have performed physical auto body
repairs paid for directly or indirectly, partially or in full, by
Progressive as a result of Automobile insurance policies issued by
Progressive, from August 7, 2005 through present."

Ohio has seven rules plaintiffs need to meet before they get
class-action status.  The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
ruled that the auto body shops failed to satisfy all but three of
these requirements, and the appellate court upheld the decision
Dec. 1.

The trial court and appellate court both agreed that any relief
had to apply to the entire class under the Rules of Civil
Procedures, which states plaintiffs get class-action status when
"the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on
grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief with respect to the class as a whole."

According to the appellate court, this means that situations where
every plaintiff would deserve different amounts of money and
liability from a losing defendant couldn't count as a class-action
suit. (For example, a shop that worked for a Progressive claimant
once during the class time versus one that did a lot of repair
orders for the carrier.)

Also, Ohio court precedent doesn't allow class-action status if
the "injunctive relief is merely incidental to the primary claim
for money damages."

The trial court decided that the liability indemnification was
basically incidental, while the shops had argued they were
separate things: Liability immunity keeps the shops which repaired
cars following Progressive's alleged "we don't pay for that" rules
from risking unknown future legal bills for the allegedly
inadequate work, while the monetary judgment helps the shops which
did all the allegedly necessary work and ate the costs of anything
Progressive wouldn't reimburse, based on the shops' argument.

"Appellants argue that the injunctive relief sought under their
Civ.R. 23(B)(2) claim is separate and inverse from the damages
sought under their Civ.R. 23(B)(3) tortious interference claim,"
the Eighth District Appellate Court wrote.  "Appellants argue that
their Civ.R. 23(B)(2) claim seeks indemnification for potential
liability arising from their adherence to Progressive's mandates
while their Civ.R. 23(B)(3) claim seeks unrelated damages for
situations in which they perform necessary repairs notwithstanding
Progressive's refusal to pay.

But the court ruled that both were sort of the same thing: costs
that shops had to eat because of something Progressive allegedly
did, regardless of if the costs were incurred during a repair or
in a courtroom.  Also, and "more importantly," according to the
court, the Ohio Supreme Court had already ruled in a different
case that "'claims for declaratory relief that merely lay a
foundation for subsequent determinations regarding liability or
that facilitate an award of damages do not meet the requirement
for certification.'"

And there's the problem of teasing out what the actual effects of
Progressive's position were for each member of the proposed class,
according to the appellate court ruling:

It is easy to understand the Supreme Court's hesitance to so
extend Civ.R. 23(B)(2) class certifications where, as here,
establishing the applicability of the desired indemnification
would require a case-by-case analysis of facts pertinent to the
repair.  Whether Progressive rightfully or wrongfully refused to
pay for a particular service or part would need to be examined in
each instance of an allegedly faulty repair.  A myriad of other
issues would also need to be resolved as well.  Causation in
particular would be a case-by-case dispute that cannot be resolved
by the appellants desired relief.  For example: Was the allegedly
defective repair in a particular incident due to Progressive's
mandates or the body shop's own negligent labor performance within
those mandates? Was the shop's desired service or part appropriate
and necessary for each particular repair that is later deemed
faulty? How can the trial court deem that Progressive is always
liable when it and the shop diverge on the manner or type of
repair to be performed without the individualized context of every
possible car repair that may occur? As the trial court noted, any
indemnification would be premised on an initial decision that the
estimate provided by Progressive was inadequate based on the
unique facts of each case.  These issues simply cannot be resolved
on a class-wide basis with any finality without considering the
facts pertinent to a particular instance of negligent repair.

The Cuyahoga County Court also decided that the case didn't meet
court rules that "the questions of law or fact common to the
members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members" and "a class action is superior to other
available methods" to handle the dispute.

The appellate court agreed, ruling that the case was simply too
case-by-case to work as a class-action.

"The trial court aptly pointed out that an individualized inquiry
would be necessary for not just each potential class member, but
every separate instance where such class members conducted a
repair under the alleged limitations imposed by Progressive,"
Judge Eileen Gallagher wrote, with Judges Sean Gallagher and
Mary Boyle concurring.  "The court would have to examine each
repair and consider whether the additional services or parts that
Progressive allegedly denied to the particular class member were
necessary to restore the damaged vehicle in question to its
pre-loss condition.

The shops had argued that everything Progressive wouldn't
reimburse was "necessary to properly repair every conceivable
damaged vehicle," as the Eighth District summarized somewhat
skeptically, noting that a court agreeing with this wasn't being
fair to Progressive:

"Appellants' theory leaves no room for Progressive to exercise its
right to dispute these facts in this litigation," the court wrote.
"Because the resolution of these disputes would require a case-by-
case analysis of every Progressive repair conducted by every
member of the class, we cannot say that common questions of law or
fact predominate over the looming mass of individualized inquires
that would dominate this litigation."

As noted above, the court didn't rule on the merits of the case
itself, just that it didn't meet its test to be a wider class-
action lawsuit.  So the plaintiff shops might yet win their
lawsuit based on each repairer's individual history with
Progressive. (Or vice versa, Progressive wins based on the facts
of claims handled with those shops.)

However, the court's ruling makes it hard to see how repairers
will be able to rate similar class-action status against insurers
in Ohio's Eighth District, unless they apparently can point to an
improper act applied uniformly that somehow affected all body
shops in a prospective class equally. (That seems like a tough
threshold for any class-action case.)


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Retirement Sys. Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Court granted an extension of the stay from November 20, 2016
until January 20, 2017, in the case Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.

On October 10, 2016, the Court granted an extension of the stay of
the proceeding from November 20, 2016 until January 20, 2017,
order to allow a special litigation committee, created by the
Company's board of directors, additional time to investigate,
review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and claims asserted
in or relating to this action and determine the Company's response
thereto. The special litigation committee's review of the facts is
ongoing.

The Providence Service Corporation is a holding company, which
owns controlling and noncontrolling interests in companies which
provide critical healthcare and workforce development services.


PTT EXPLORATION: Indonesia Mulls Suit Over Montara Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Nicholas Jong, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that the
government is planning to take Thailand-based oil producer PTT
Exploration and Production (PTTEP) Australasia to court, in
support of a legal fight by a group of Indonesian fishermen who
allegedly suffered from contamination caused by the company's
operations in Timor Sea.

The government plans to file a lawsuit at the Central Jakarta
District Court to demand the company pay for environmental damage
allegedly caused by an oil spill following an explosion at the
Montara oil rig in the Timor Sea in 2009.

"We are preparing the lawsuit now.  We hope it will be processed
as soon as possible in Central Jakarta because we already have all
the documents," maritime security affairs deputy at the Office of
the Coordinating Maritime Affairs Minister, Arif Havas Oegroseno,
told The Jakarta Post on Dec. 6.

Arif, who leads the national team on the 2009 Montara Oil Spill
Disaster in the Timor Sea Case Settlement, said the planned
lawsuit was separate from the class action suit by the fishermen
currently being processed in the Australian Federal Court in
Sydney.

He said, however, the government had no plans to suspend the
licenses or freeze the assets of PTTEP in Indonesia, as reported
by the Post on Dec. 5.

The class action was filed by more than 13,000 Indonesian seaweed
farmers who are seeking more than A$200 million (US$149 million)
to cover alleged damages.

Their livelihoods were devastated after the explosion at PTTEP's
Montara oil rig some 690 kilometers west of Darwin and 250 km
southeast of Rote Island, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), which resulted
in gas and oil from the rig gushing into the Timor Sea for more
than 70 days.

It is estimated that in excess of 300,000 liters of oil per day
contaminated the sea, equivalent to pouring 10 Olympic-sized
swimming pools of toxic sludge daily into the ocean over the
months the spill continued.

Following the oil spill, fish catches and seaweed harvests in NTT
continued to decline in the heavily polluted waters.  The Timor
Sea Traditional Fishermen Alliance (Antralamor) said fishermen in
NTT saw their incomes slump by 70 percent after the incident.

However, the class action did not represent all people affected by
the oil spill, Arif said.

"Those who filed the class action suit were only seaweed farmers,
while other farmers didn't," he said.

Therefore, the government has felt the need to file a separate
lawsuit, which will be managed by the Environment and Forestry
Ministry and the Attorney General's Office.

"We can't file a lawsuit as a representative of individuals.  We
can sue [the company] on the grounds of environmental damage,"
Arif said.

The planned lawsuit was needed as PTTEP had not been cooperative
and had "not shown good faith" in handling the incident, he added.

For instance, PTTEP refused to allocate funding as compensation
from its corporate social responsibility funding, even though the
company initially agreed to do so when it had discussions with a
joint independent commission tasked with managing the case.

"[The allocation of the funding] had been agreed as well as the
time and the place in 2012. But the company didn't turn up. So
PTTEP has not shown good faith," Arif said.

Aside from the lawsuit, the government has also called on
Australia to help find a solution to the oil spill.

Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan told
Fairfax Media that after seven years there was still no resolution
for those affected by the worst oil spill in the history of
Australia's offshore petroleum fields.  "There is no solution so
far and the victims are fishermen in the area. Australia should
help out as well to solve this problem," he said as quoted by The
Sydney Morning Herald.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Suit Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case,
Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA
Distribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona California Class
Action), a status conference has since been continued until
December 28, 2016 so the parties can attempt to obtain the
necessary documents.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the
"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for
temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of
herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under
California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along
with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class
were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices,
including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among
others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for
work-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly
employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA.

Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety,
deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class
members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these
allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable
records and legal standards.

If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the
Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the
Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not
believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since,
among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains
highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the
Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be
characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant
Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii)
any settlement will be properly apportioned between all named
defendants and Radiant and DBA will not exclusively fund the
settlement; (iv) wage and hour class actions of this nature
typically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs'
demands because of the uncertainly with litigation and the
difficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (v)
Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this matter through
a mediated settlement.

Plaintiff admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to
prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she
needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities,
and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of
their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which has
since been continued until December 28, 2016 so the parties can
attempt to obtain the necessary documents.

DBA and Radiant are attempting to obtain the necessary records
through the Tri-State and Accountabilities' Trustee. At this time,
the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely
outcome of the matter.

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third party logistics
company, providing multi-modal transportation and logistics
services primarily in the United States and Canada.


RICO PAN: "De Leon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DE LEON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
RICO PAN, INC., a Florida corporation and RAFAEL PEREZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25154-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
December 12, 2016), alleges that Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not
been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three
years in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rico Pan is a Colombian fast food joint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto E. Moran, Esq.
     ROBERTO E. MORAN, P.A.
     2555 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 600
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 476-7100
     Fax: (305) 476-7102
     Email: rmoran@robertomoranlaw.com


RIO TINTO: Weiner Trust Files Suit Over "Misleading" Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY P. WEINER SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RIO TINTO PLC, SAM
WALSH, TOM ALBANESE, CHRISTOPHER JAMES LYNCH, and GUY ELLIOTT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09572 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2016),
alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

RIO TINTO PLC, a mining and metals company, finds, mines, and
processes mineral resources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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


SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Remand Two Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce
Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on November
30th, in Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., United
States District Judge Joseph Laplante of the District of New
Hampshire denied plaintiffs' motion to remand two related class
action lawsuits based on allegations that defendants had caused a
release of toxic chemicals from a manufacturing plant that
contaminated nearby wells and water supplies.  One lawsuit was
brought on behalf of a putative class of current owners of
residential properties with private groundwater wells within two
miles of the manufacturing site, and sought damages for the
alleged diminished values of their properties.  The other lawsuit
was brought on behalf of a putative class of current and former
residents of such properties, and sought to recover the costs of
medical monitoring.  The defendants are the company that owns the
plant and the individual plant manager.  They removed the case to
federal court under CAFA, and plaintiffs moved to remand, citing
CAFA's local controversy exception.

The local controversy exception requires district courts to
decline CAFA jurisdiction where 1) more than two-thirds of the
members of the proposed classes are citizens of the state in which
the action was originally filed, 2) at least one defendant is a
citizen of the forum state from whom significant relief is sought
and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims
asserted by the proposed class, and 3) the principal alleged
injuries occurred in the forum state.  For the exception to apply,
there also must have been no other class actions filed asserting
"the same or similar allegations against any of the defendants on
behalf of the same or other persons" during the three year period
before the class action in question was filed.

Citing First Circuit precedent, the district court observed that
the party seeking remand bears the burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that the local controversy exception
applies.  Plaintiffs were unable to satisfy their burden because
five other putative class actions had been filed against the
manufacturer in New York and Vermont within the prior three years.
Plaintiffs argued that the cases did not involve "similar
allegations" because they did not allege harm in New Hampshire,
but the court disagreed, holding that the allegations did not need
to be identical.  The claims in each of the actions, the court
found, arose from "effectively the same conduct by [the
manufacturer], albeit conduct affecting different plaintiffs and
different localities.  This renders the factual allegations
sufficiently similar to meet this requirement."

This ruling disposed of the motion for remand, but the court, "for
the sake of thoroughness," considered the remaining requirements
of the local controversy exception.  The classes in each of the
two New Hampshire cases differed, and these differences affected
the court's analysis of certain of the requirements.  For example,
it found it likely that the class of current property owners
satisfied the requirement that more than two-thirds of the members
of the proposed class are citizens of New Hampshire, but found
that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of establishing
this element for the medical monitoring class because it included
former residents of the subject properties.

The court reached similar conclusions with respect to the local
defendant criteria.  The local defendant is the plant manager, a
citizen of New Hampshire.  The claims against the manufacturer
dated back to 2000, but the individual defendant did not become
plant manager until 2012.  The court had no difficulty finding
that the plant manager's alleged conduct was a "substantial basis"
for the property damage claims of current property owners, but not
for the medical monitoring claims of former residents who moved
away before he became plant manager.  For the same reasons, the
court found that the property damage class sought "significant
relief" from both defendants, but that plaintiffs had not
established that the medical monitoring class also sought
significant relief from him because the class period might have
begun before he became plant manager.  In reaching this
conclusion, the court rejected the argument that the "significant
relief" requirement depends on a defendant's ability to pay.
Pointing out that courts are split on that issue, the district
judge concluded that the statute unambiguously focuses on whether
significant relief is sought from the local defendant, not on
whether the defendant has the capacity to satisfy a judgment.


SID'S SEALANTS: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Holmes On behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs v. Sid's Sealants, LLC, Sid Arthur
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00821-slc (W.D. Wis., December 12,
2016), seeks redress for Sid's Sealant's alleged failure to pay
Plaintiff overtime pay, and failure to count some of their work
time as hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sid's Sealants, LLC -- http://sidssealants.com/-- provides
caulking, waterproofing, spray foam and sealant experts in
commercial, industrial and residential building waterproofing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yingtao Ho, Esq.
     Jill Hartley, Esq.
     THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
     310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Phone: 414-271-4500
     Fax: 414/271-6308


SIRIUS XM: Settlement May Solidify Position in Digital Music
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Stoltz, writing for Electronic Frontier Foundation, reports
that Sirius XM Satellite Radio's recent settlement with ex-members
of the 60s rock group The Turtles over royalty payments for old
recordings has the potential to solidify the dominant position of
big music services like Sirius XM, at the expense of new music
services, independent and Web-based radio stations, and the
listening public.  If approved by the court, the settlement would
give Sirius XM permission to stream a vast catalogue of music
recordings made before 1972 while other music services and radio
stations remain at legal risk.

The litigation campaign by Flo & Eddie, Inc., a company made up of
former members of the 1960's band the Turtles, started three years
ago with class action lawsuits in California, New York, and
Florida.  While most creative work in the U.S. is governed by the
federal Copyright Act, sound recordings made before February 15,
1972 are left to state laws.  And those state laws, created in a
pre-digital era, were silent about whether they included a "public
performance" right -- i.e., whether the copyright holder can
demand royalties when their songs are played on the radio, or even
keep them off of the radio altogether.

In general, copyrights on sound recordings in the U.S. don't come
with a public performance right.  That's why AM and FM radio
stations have never paid or sought permission from artists and
record labels.  There's a limited right that covers "digital audio
transmissions" such as Internet and satellite radio, but even that
right doesn't allow a copyright holder to keep her music off the
air.  A government body, the Copyright Royalty Board, sets the
rules and rates for Web and satellite radio.

Pre-1972 recordings fall into a different category, governed by a
patchwork of state laws and court decisions.  The class action
suits by Flo & Eddie claimed that Sirius XM and Pandora, two of
the largest digital music services, had to pay royalties for every
play of a pre-1972 recording.

EFF has been involved in these suits at every level, filing amicus
briefs to explain some of the pitfalls that could come from
creating new state copyright law rights.  Most recently, EFF filed
a brief with the Florida Supreme Court, aided by copyright and
appellate specialist Dineen P. Wasylik.  Its brief argues that the
purpose of copyright law is to create an incentive for artistic
creation.  In the words of the U.S. Constitution, its purpose is
to "Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Since state
law only applies to recordings that are over 45 years old,
creating new rights in those recordings wouldn't encourage new
recordings, which are governed by federal law alone.

EFF's brief also pointed out a potential pitfall that would come
from creating broad new rights through a court case.  Most
expansions of copyright over the past century have come from
Congress (and occasionally from state legislatures).  Those
expansions are almost always coupled with careful limitations,
like the fair use doctrine, and the statutory license that lets
Internet radio stations stream a wide variety of music with
minimal transaction costs.  Courts, by contrast, can only rule on
the facts in front of them, which in these cases involve large,
established music services.  Creating a new right to control
performances through a court case means creating a right without
specifying what its limitations will be.  And a settlement between
Sirius XM and recording artists is likely to be a deal that puts
Sirius XM in a privileged position, likely paying lower royalty
rates than a smaller competitor could negotiate, and on more
favorable terms.

As it turns out, the parties to these lawsuits didn't even wait to
find out whether California, New York, and Florida law recognize
an exclusive right of public performance.  On the same day that
EFF submitted its brief in Florida, Flo & Eddie and Sirius XM
filed a settlement proposal with the federal court in California.
Under that proposal, Sirius XM will pay pre-1972 copyright holders
a lump sum of $25 to $40 million, and an ongoing royalty of up to
5.5% of revenues.  The basic question of whether a public
performance right exists at all remains unanswered, and appeals in
all three states are continuing.

The landscape is now more uncertain for music services and radio
stations who aren't called Sirius XM.  The different states could
still reach different answers to the question of whether those
services must pay royalties for the performance of pre-1972
recordings (lower courts have already come down differently in
each state, though the decisions are still up on appeal).  If any
of them decide that state law covers those performances, music
services and radio stations will have to begin the complex process
of negotiating terms and royalties -- and that process will likely
involve more expensive litigation.  Sirius XM, meanwhile, has
already secured permission to play any pre-1972 recording on its
service at predictable royalty rates for years to come, giving it
a major advantage over new music services.

Another serious problem looms: a lower court ruling in the
California case implies that state copyright law contains none of
the exceptions and limitations of federal law, including fair use.
As EFF explained in an earlier brief, fair use is required by the
U.S. Constitution, in order to make copyright law compatible with
the First Amendment.  This needs fixing, but if Flo & Eddie
prevail in their appeals, the fix may not come quickly.

One solution to this mess is for the various courts to rule that
no state-law right of public performance exists -- in other words,
to confirm the assumptions that the entire music industry has
operated under for decades.  Another is for Congress to follow the
Copyright Office's recommendation from a 2011 report: place all
sound recordings under federal law, regardless of when they were
made.


SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Considers All Natural Litigation to Be Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Company
distributed the funds related to the class settlement in the All
Natural litigation and considers that case to be closed.

The Company said: "We have certain class action legal proceedings
filed against us which allege that certain ingredients in some of
our products that are labeled as "natural" and "all natural" are
not natural. Although we believe that we had strong defenses
against these claims, we reached a settlement agreement in the
third quarter of 2015 in order to avoid the costs and uncertainty
of litigation. We recognized $2.8 million of expense in
settlements of certain litigation in our Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Income in the first nine months of 2015. The
settlement amount of $2.8 million is accrued in other payables and
accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
at the end of the third quarter of 2016."

Subsequent to the end of the third quarter of 2016, the Company
distributed the funds related to the class settlement and
considers the case to be closed; however, a portion of the accrued
administrative fees will be paid in the fourth quarter."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the
snack food industry.  The Company manufactures, markets, and
distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products
include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread
basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.
The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private
labels, and third party brands.


SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Class Suit by IBOs in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc., is defending itself against a putative class
action lawsuit brought by independent business owners in
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 October 1, 2016.

The Company said: "On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs
filed a putative class action against Snyder's-Lance, Inc. and our
distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc. in the
Eastern District Court of Tennessee.  The case was transferred to
the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The lawsuit seeks statewide
class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in
Tennessee, and nationwide certification for the Federal law
collective action.   The plaintiffs allege that they were
misclassified as independent contractors and should be considered
employees."

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us.  We cannot reasonably estimate at this
time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this
lawsuit."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the
snack food industry.  The Company manufactures, markets, and
distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products
include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread
basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.
The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private
labels, and third party brands.


SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Two Suits Over Diamond Foods Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc., is defending two lawsuits arising from its
acquisition of Diamond Foods, Inc., the Company said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016.

On October 27, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Diamond Foods, Inc.
Diamond was a leading snack food company that possessed five
brands including Kettle Brand(R) potato chips, KETTLE(R) Chips,
Pop Secret(R) popcorn, Emerald(R) snack nuts, and Diamond of
California(R) culinary nuts.  The acquisition closed on Feb. 29,
2016, and, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Diamond became the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Diamond stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. The complaint names as defendants Diamond, the
members of Diamond's board of directors, Snyder's-Lance, Shark
Acquisition Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub I") and Shark
Acquisition Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub II"). The
complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members
of Diamond's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Diamond's stockholders in connection with negotiating, entering
into and approving the merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc.
The complaint additionally alleges that Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub
I and Merger Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary
duties. The complaint sought injunctive relief, including the
enjoinment of the merger, certain other declaratory and equitable
relief, damages, costs and fees.

An amended complaint was filed on December 21, 2015. The amended
complaint adds further allegations related to the merger process
and disclosures contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-
4 filed by Snyder's-Lance on November 25, 2015. On January 15,
2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings
requesting a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, which
the Court denied on February 3, 2016. Plaintiff also filed a books
and records demand case in North Carolina, which the plaintiff
subsequently dismissed with prejudice.

On January 19, 2016, another action was filed in the court of
chancery in the state of Delaware similar to the above matter. On
October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which modified some of plaintiff's allegations, including now
expressly seeking a quasi-appraisal remedy or rescissory damages.
The parties also have submitted to the court a proposed schedule
for briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, which would extend through March 2017.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the
snack food industry.  The Company manufactures, markets, and
distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products
include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread
basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.
The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private
labels, and third party brands.


SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Settles "Sparks" Suit for $700,000
------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that it entered into a
tentative settlement pursuant to which it agreed to pay $0.7
million on a class wide basis in the lawsuit filed by Patricia
Sparks against its subsidiary, Diamond Foods, Inc.

Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Diamond on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco
Superior Court alleging Diamond's violation of the California
Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date
of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the
name and address of the legal entity that is the employer.
Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim
for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act
based on the same underlying violations.  Diamond timely answered
the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016.  The parties
attended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 and
a further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016.

The Company said, "We accrued $8.3 million associated with this
outstanding claim in the Diamond opening balance sheet as that
represented our best estimate of the probable liability at that
time. We determined such accrual by estimating the aggregate
potential penalties that we believed it was probable could be
assessed under the applicable California laws, which are strict
liability penalties."

"On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached a
tentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7
million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum of
understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. The
settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive
settlement agreement by the parties and approval by the court. As
result of the memorandum of understanding, we have recorded a
measurement period adjustment to reduce the opening Balance Sheet
accrual and accordingly accounted for this settlement amount in
our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for the quarter ended
October 1, 2016."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the
snack food industry.  The Company manufactures, markets, and
distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products
include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread
basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.
The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private
labels, and third party brands.


SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice Term Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit initiated against Snyder's-Lance, Inc.'s subsidiary
over the use of the term "evaporated cane juice" remains 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 October 1, 2016.

A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks,
LLC on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The action
accuses Late July Snacks, LLC of violating federal and state law
by using the term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in the
ingredients list on its products' labels. The plaintiffs'
complaint alleges ECJ is not the common and usual name for the
ingredient at issue and is misleading. The complaint attempts to
state claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Late July Snacks, LLC filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure to
state a claim.

On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing
consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels.
On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the
topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things,
relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance, on August 31, 2016.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the
snack food industry.  The Company manufactures, markets, and
distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products
include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread
basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.
The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private
labels, and third party brands.


SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Rest Break
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genalyn Pascual Nicolas, Victoria Agusi-Damola, Febe Banayos
Barangan, Julie Guarin Reyes, and Xerxes Velayo Reyes v. Solheim
Lutheran Home, Inc. and Does 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No.
BC643735 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 12, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide rest breaks or compensate
hourly employees in accordance with the provisions of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a residential facility for senior citizens
providing residential care services, assisted living care
services, memory care services, and skilled nursing care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kasey Diba, Esq.
      Amir Alavi, Esq.
      FINNEGAN & DIBA, A LAW CORPORATION
      3660 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 710
      Los Angeles, CA 92656
      Telephone: (213) 480-0292
      Facsimile: (213) 480-0805
      E-mail: kdiba@fdlegal.com
              aalavi@fdlegal.com


SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Bush Fire Survivors Set to Get Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Karvelas, writing for ABC, reports that compensation
cheques will soon be arriving in the mail for some of the
survivors of the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires.

Two separate class actions were launched by law firm Maurice
Blackburn against electricity provider SP AusNet and parts of the
Victorian Government, following the bushfires in February 2009.
Those cases were settled in 2014 and 2015.

Lyn Gunter, former Mayor of Murrindindi and one of the class
action claimants, speaks to RN Drive.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Seeks More Time to Reply to "Dugas" Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dugas v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00014 (S.D. Cal.), Defendants HST GP San
Diego, LLC, HST Lessee San Diego, LP, Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc. on Dec. 16 filed a Joint Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response to Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on Dec. 7.

On Nov. 3, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and gave Plaintiff 20 days
from the issuance of the Order to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Failure to meet the 20-day deadline to file an amended complaint
or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order would
have resulted to the dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in
November 2015, Starwood announced a malware intrusion had affected
point of sale systems at various outlets within certain Legacy-
Starwood branded hotels. This resulted in the potential compromise
of credit card data and associated personal information. The
affected credit card companies are evaluating whether and to what
extent financial penalties should be imposed.

A putative class action arising from the malware intrusion was
filed against Starwood on January 5, 2016 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California. The named
plaintiff, Paul Dugas, does not specify any damages sought, and a
motion to dismiss the case is awaiting resolution by the Court.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of
hotels and timeshare properties in 120 countries and territories
under 30 brand names at the end of the 2016 third quarter.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of a purported class
of indirect purchasers of steel products remains pending.

The Company said, "Although, a tentative settlement has been
reached in the case, we have to date been involved, along with two
other remaining non-settling defendant steel manufacturing
companies, from an original group of eight, in a direct purchaser
class action antitrust suit in federal court in Chicago, Illinois,
under the caption of Standard Iron Works v Arcelor Mittal, et al."

"Two other complaints, not yet settled, were brought on behalf of
a purported class of indirect purchasers of steel products within
the same time period. We have a pending motion to dismiss in that
case.

"The complaints allege a conspiracy to limit output on the part of
the defendants, in order to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States
during a specified period between 2005 and 2007. The complaints
seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

"In September 2015, the Court denied class certification on the
issue of antitrust impact and damages, but granted class
certification on the limited issue of the alleged conspiracy.

"In October 2016, we announced that we have entered into an
agreement to settle the direct purchaser case for a payment of
$4.6 million. Preliminary approval was granted by the court on
November 3, 2016, and final approval by the Court is also expected
to be forthcoming.

"During the approval process, members of the class will be given
an opportunity to opt-out of the class and retain their own
individual rights.

"Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, we cannot presently
predict either the final outcome of the proposed settlement
process, including whether there may be opt-outs from the
settlement, or the outcome of the remaining indirect purchaser
case."

Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), together with its subsidiaries (the
company), is one of the largest domestic steel producers and
metals recyclers. The company has three reportable segments,
consistent with how it manages the business: steel operations,
metals recycling operations, and steel fabrication operations.


SUNSHINE LANDSCAPERS: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onofre Suarez, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sunshine Landscapers, LLC and Bobac Medalian, Case No.
9:16-cv-81982-WJZ (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscape services company in
North Palm Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad E. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
      915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL  33304
      Telephone: (954) 763-5722
      Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
      E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Appeal by Insurers in Suit vs. NMGC Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by insurance carriers in the lawsuits arising from
gas shortages in New Mexico was dismissed, according to Tampa
Electric 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 2011, New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. experienced gas
shortages due to weather-related interruptions of electric
service, weather-related problems on the systems of various
interstate pipelines and in gas fields that are the sources of gas
supplied to NMGC, and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply
disruption and high usage resulted in the declaration of system
emergencies by NMGC causing involuntary curtailments of gas
utility service to approximately 28,700 customers (residential and
business).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas
utility service curtailed during the early-February system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In
March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to
represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and
governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the
natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does
at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class
action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff
purporting to represent a class of all "similarly situated New
Mexico private businesses and enterprises."

In September 2015, a settlement was reached with all the named
plaintiff class representatives in both of the class actions. The
settlements were on an individual basis and not a class basis.

In addition to the two settled class actions described above, 18
insurance carriers have filed two subrogation lawsuits for monies
paid to their insureds as a result of the curtailment of natural
gas service in February 2011.

In January 2016, the judge entered summary judgment in favor of
NMGC and all of the subrogation lawsuits were dismissed. The
insurance carriers subsequently filed a timely appeal of the
summary judgment. In late May 2016, a settlement was reached with
all the named plaintiffs in the subrogation lawsuits. A motion to
dismiss the appeal was granted by the court on Aug. 2, 2016.

The Company says the settlements were not material to the Company.

Tampa Electric Company is the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy,
Inc.  TECO Energy is an electric and gas utility holding company
with diversified activities.


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final hearing to consider approval of settlement to resolve
lawsuits arising from merger with Emera Inc. is set for December
2016, according to Tampa Electric 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 1, 2016, TECO Energy Inc. and Emera Inc. completed the
Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement entered into on Sept.
4, 2015. As a result of the Merger, the Merger Sub Company merged
with and into TECO Energy with TECO Energy continuing as the
surviving corporation and becoming a wholly owned indirect
subsidiary of Emera.  Emera is a geographically diverse energy and
services company headquartered in Nova Scotia, Canada

Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securities
following the announcement of the Emera transaction.  Eleven suits
were filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Hillsborough County, Florida.  They alleged that TECO
Energy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the Merger Agreement and sought to enjoin the Merger.
Several of these suits alleged that one or more of TECO Energy,
Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such alleged
breaches. The securities class action lawsuits were consolidated
per court order.  Since the consolidation, two of the complaints
were amended. One of those complaints has added a claim against
the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to
disclose.  The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle District of
Florida Federal Court and has subsequently been voluntarily
dismissed.

The company also received two separate shareholder demand letters
from purported shareholders of the company.  Both of these letters
demanded that the company maximize shareholder value and remove
alleged conflicts of interest as well as eliminate allegedly
preclusive deal protection devices.  One of the letters also
demanded that the company refrain from consummating the
transaction with Emera. Both of these demand letters have
subsequently been withdrawn.

In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the various shareholder
plaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of the
pending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger.  As
a result of the Memorandum of Understanding, the company made
additional disclosures related to the proposed Merger in a proxy
supplement.

In September 2016, a hearing was held to gain preliminary approval
of a negotiated stipulation of settlement. After that hearing, the
judge entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class
action settlement and scheduling a final approval hearing for
December 2016.

There can be no assurance that the court will grant final approval
of the settlement. However, while the outcome of such proceeding
remains uncertain, management does not believe that its ultimate
resolution will have a material adverse effect on the company's
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Tampa Electric Company is the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy,
Inc.  TECO Energy is an electric and gas utility holding company
with diversified activities.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Medicaid Program Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
S.B., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 2016CV283573 (Ga. Super.
Ct., December 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of
the Defendant's submission of false certifications to various
state Medicaid programs for the undocumented immigrant women who
would be eligible for emergency Medicaid services when they gave
birth.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates a healthcare services
company with its principal executive offices located at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas 75202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      G. Franklin Lemond Jr., Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE &LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (770) 444-0773
      E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
              Franklin@WebbLLC.com

         - and -


      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909)557-1250
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      555 Lancaster Avenue
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610)200-0580
      E-mail: jsg@mccunewright.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Alleges Conspiracy Over Pravastatin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers International Union of North America Local 3 5 Health
Care Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan, foe.,
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals USA; Inc., Apotex, Inc., Sandoz, Jnc.,
Lek Pharmaceuticals, d.d., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin, Ltd., Cadtla Healthcare, Ltd.,
Actavis HoldCo, U.S., Inc., and Zydus PharmaceutiG.ls (USA), Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06395-TON (E.D. Pa., December 12,
2016), alleges that Defendants are engaging in a conspiracy to
fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic pravastatin
sodium drug products.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. -- http://www.tevausa.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent W. Landau, Esq.
     Katie R. Beran, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     325 Chestnut St., Suite 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 985-3270
     Fax: (215) 985-3271
     Email: blandau@hausfeld.com
     Email: kberan@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 633-1908
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
     Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
     Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
     Email: jkenney@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
     185 Madison Ave, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 213-8311
     Fax: (212) 779-0028
     Email: FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com
            DRehns@hrsclaw.com


TRACFONE WIRELESS: City of Pickering to Take Part in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nodaway News Leader reports that the City of Pickering may receive
money from a class action lawsuit filed in St. Louis against
TracFone Wireless, Inc. to collect business license fees.

The council agreed to pay the attorneys involved five percent of
any money received.

White Cloud engineering did not receive payment in October, so the
November payment will be twice the normal amount of $350.

A representative from Pickering Christian Church contacted City
Clerk Milt Sovereign to say the church will no longer use the
parsonage.  The property's sewer pump has been pulled and put into
reserve.

Mid-America Road Builders, Platte City, submitted a $14,445 bid to
remove tube and clean a ditch causing standing water.  The bid
also included 1,000 pounds of cold patch which the city uses to
patch streets inbetween projects.

Council members determined the bid was too high and asked Mayor
Charles Smith to seek other bids.

The council agreed to sell Jubal Smith the city's old dirt and
cold patch mix for $100 as the cold patch deteriorates and must be
replaced periodically.

Storm Sirens, Inc., Norman, OK, contacted the city.  The company
sold the city two sirens in 2010.  Sovereign will call the company
about screens for the sirens to keep out debris.

The council agreed to pay the city clerk's bond premium and make
the annual payment on one of the sewer loans.

The council will provide Christmas treats for North Nodaway
Elementary students in Pickering.  This yearly tradition will take
place on the last day of school before Christmas break.


TRUEBLUE INC: Settles Class Action for $5MM, Feb. 6 Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq., and David N. Anthony, Esq., of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that
in Joseph v. TrueBlue, Inc., the named plaintiff brought a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action against the
workforce staffing company for its alleged text messaging
advertisements.  TrueBlue recently agreed to a $5 million
settlement to end the case.

According to the amended class action complaint, TrueBlue sent
text message "Job Alert" advertisements to Daniel Joseph and
others.  Because of the volume of text messages he was receiving,
Joseph decided to stop the text messages and texted the word
"Stop" to TrueBlue.  Joseph received notice that "You have
unsubscribed from [TrueBlue's] job alerts.  You will receive no
more messages."  However, thereafter TrueBlue allegedly continued
to send text messages to Mr. Joseph.

The case was litigated for nearly two years before the parties
reached a settlement.  In September 2015, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement
agreement.  The agreement provides for a $5 million settlement
fund for "all 1,948 individuals identified in [TrueBlue's] records
that were sent a job alert text message after a request to
unsubscribe to their cellular telephone from the same system that
sent Plaintiff a job alert text message after his unsubscribe
requests."  TrueBlue also agreed to change its business practice
to stop making or causing to be made automated calls and texts
after stop requests.

On November 21, Mr. Joseph filed a motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and a service award.  Specifically, he seeks more than $1.6
million in attorneys' fees (or 33% of the common fund), over
$14,000 in litigation expenses, and $10,000 as an incentive award.

A final approval hearing is set for February 6, 2017.


TUBEMOGUL: Faces "Theil" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Sale to Adobe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Thiel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tubemogul, Inc., Brett Wilson, Ajay Chopra, Russell
Fradin, Jack Lazar, Paul Levine, David Toth, Adode Systems
Incorporated, and Tiger Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-
07083 (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
common stock holders of TubeMogul, Inc., to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of TubeMogul common stock
by Adobe Systems Incorporated, through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Tubemogul, Inc. operates a software company for brand advertising
with its principal executive offices located at 1250 53rd Street,
Suite 2 Emeryville, California 94608.

Adobe Systems Incorporated offers a line of products and services
used by creative professionals, marketers, knowledge workers,
application developers, enterprises and consumers for creating,
managing, delivering, measuring, optimizing and engaging with
compelling content and experiences across multiple operating
systems, devices and media.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shirli Fabbri Weiss, Esq.
      David Priebe, Esq.
      DLA PIPER LLP
      2000 University Avenue
      East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248
      Telephone: (650)833-2000
      Facsimile: (650)833-2001
      E-mail: shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com
              david.priebe@dlapiper.com


TUBEMOGUL INC: Faces "Yavuz" Sued Over Proposed Sale to Adobe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bahadir Yavuz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tubemogul, Inc., Brett Wilson, Ajay Chopra, Russell
Fradin, Ashu Garg, Jack Lazar, Paul Levine, David Toth, Adobe
Systems Incorporated and Tiger Acquisition Corporation, Case No.
3:16-cv-06996-JD (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all common stock holders of TubeMogul, Inc., to enjoin
the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of TubeMogul
common stock by Adobe Systems Incorporated, through a flawed
process and inadequate consideration.

Tubemogul, Inc. operates a software company for brand advertising
with its principal executive offices located at 1250 53rd Street,
Suite 2 Emeryville, California 94608.

Adobe Systems Incorporated offers a line of products and services
used by creative professionals, marketers, knowledge workers,
application developers, enterprises and consumers for creating,
managing, delivering, measuring, optimizing and engaging with
compelling content and experiences across multiple operating
systems, devices and media.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


TYAN INC: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Cazares, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Tyan, Inc. d/b/a Security Specialists and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC643418 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees
with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements in writing, as
required by California wage-and-hour laws.

Tyan, Inc. owns and operates a security guard service company in
San Fernando, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hugo E. Gamez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HUGO GAMEZ
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (424) 442-0623
      Facsimile: (310)693-2538
      E-mail: Hugo@hgamezlaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew L. Treger, Esq.
      BAER TREGER LLP
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)226-7570
      Facsimile: (310)226-7571
      E-mail: reger@baertreger.com


UBS SECURITIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Incentive Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Zoller and Alexander Beigelman, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. UBS Securities LLC, UBS
Financial Services Inc., and UBS Americas Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
11277 (N.D. Ill., December 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for forfeiting terminated employees' incentive and
deferred compensation.

The Defendants provide financial and wealth management services to
its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda D. Friedman
      STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
      303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 431-0888
      E-mail: Lfriedman@sfltd.com

UNITED DEV'T: Judge Sends Class Action Back to Chancery Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that a Delaware federal judge has sent back to the
Delaware Court of Chancery a proposed class and derivative action
over an alleged $1 billion "Ponzi-like scheme" at Texas-based
limited partnership United Development Funding III, finding that
claims for fiduciary breaches, waste and unjust enrichment called
for state, and not federal, review.

The plaintiffs, co-trustees of the David C. Fannin Revocable
Trust, initially filed suit in the Chancery Court in early July,
asserting individual and derivative claims against UDF's brass and
eight other companies for self-dealing and self-enrichment in a
supposed scheme to misappropriate investor funds.

However, the defendants successfully petitioned to have the case
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which gives
district courts jurisdiction over putative class actions seeking
more than $5 million in damages.

But on Dec. 2, U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District
of Delaware reversed course and ordered the litigation back to
state court.  The complaint, she said, met two narrow carve-outs
within CAFA, known as the internal affairs doctrine and the
securities exception.

"Because plaintiffs' class action solely involves claims that fall
within the internal affairs and securities exceptions to CAFA, the
court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the instant action
under CAFA," Judge Robinson wrote in a 10-page memorandum.

In opposing the remand motion, Judge Robinson said, the defendants
had given an "overly broad" reading to the 130-page complaint and
interpreted the CAFA exceptions as far too narrow.
Under the internal affairs doctrine, only one state has authority
to regulate a company's dealings among its current officers,
directors and shareholders.  And while the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims may have raised the specter of fraud, they
related "solely" to UDF's internal affairs of governance, Judge
Robinson said.

Claims for breach of contract also met the securities exception.
Under that exception to the CAFA, state courts are given
jurisdiction of claims related to rights and duties that are
created pursuant to any security.

In fact, Judge Robinson said, the limited partnership itself
qualified as an investment contract, governed by a partnership
agreement that defined the securities the plaintiffs received in
exchange for their investments within the scope of the securities
exception.

"The partnership agreement expressly retains fiduciary duties and
prohibits any contractual limitation or elimination of fiduciary
duties; it is governed by and construed under Delaware law," Judge
Robinson said.  "As the court interprets the complaint,
plaintiffs' claims pertain solely to the 'relationships inter se'
of UDF III's general and limited partners, as those relationships
are defined by Delaware corporate law and by the partnership
agreement."

The plaintiff investors are represented by Robert Kriner Jr. --
RobertKriner@chimicles.com -- A. Zachary Naylor --
ZN@chimicles.com -- Tiffany J. Cramer and Vera G. Belger --
VeraGerrity@Chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis.

The defendants are represented by Steven L. Caponi of K&L Gates.
The federal case was captioned Fannin v. UMTH Land Development.
The cases, in the Court of Chancery, are captioned Fannin and
Fannin as Co-Trustees v. UMTH Land Development.


VAALCO ENERGY: Wins Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Butcher" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware approved a
stipulation and order of dismissal in the stockholder lawsuit
initiated by Daniel Butcher, VAALCO 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.

On October 3, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court") approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
entered into by the parties in a stockholder class action lawsuit
against the Company and all of its directors alleging that a
previously terminated shareholder rights agreement, no longer in
effect, and certain provisions of the former CEO's and former
CFO's employment agreements securing change-in-control severance
benefits were invalid under Delaware law, case number C.A. No.
12277-VCL, filed on April 29, 2016,  in the Court.  After the
Company and its directors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, the
Plaintiff Daniel Butcher agreed to dismiss the lawsuit as moot,
and the Company agreed to settle Plaintiff's application for an
award of attorneys' fees, which it expects its insurer to pay, due
to the anticipated costs of continuing to prosecute the motion to
dismiss and defending the Plaintiff's fee application, as well as
the litigation risk associated therewith.

VAALCO Energy, Inc., is a Houston-based independent energy company
principally engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development
and production of crude oil and natural gas. As operator, the
Company has production operations and conduct exploration
activities in Gabon, West Africa. As non-operator, the Company
participates in exploration and development activities in
Equatorial Guinea, West Africa. In the United States, VAALCO is
the operator of two unconventional wells in North Texas and holds
undeveloped leasehold acreage in Montana.


VALHI INC: Suits Arising From Use of Lead Pigments Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits against a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., alleging injury
arising from use of lead pigments remain 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.

NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture
of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other
former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-
based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and
the Lead Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinued
business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in
various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury,
property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by
the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been
filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public
housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have
been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under
a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment
rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or
the plaintiffs.

NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intends
to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability
and to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believe
it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to
all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party,
and liability to the Company that may result, if any, in this
regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:

   * NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional
     tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of
     warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and
     abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases,

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
     entered against NL, and

   * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to
     any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
     twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and
     for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of
     liability.

Accordingly, the Company says neither the Company nor NL have
accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-
based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states,
counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school
districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, the
Company has determined that liability to the Company which may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no
prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could
be made and there is no substantive information available upon
which an estimate could be based.

Valhi, Inc., is primarily a holding company.  The Company operates
through its wholly-owned and its majority-owned subsidiaries,
including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX
International Inc., Waste Control Specialists LLC, Tremont LLC,
Basic Management, Inc. and The LandWell Company.


VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Question AG's Role in Asphalt Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McElhinny, writing for Metro News, reports that lawmakers are
asking whether state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey should more
clearly be involved with a class action lawsuit claiming the
asphalt for paving West Virginia's roads costs too much because of
monopolistic practices.

In October, the private firm Bailey & Glasser filed lawsuits on
behalf of Charleston, Parkersburg, Beckley and Bluefield.  A
couple of days later, the state Department of Transportation
jumped on board the lawsuit.

The Attorney General's office has remained in the background. The
issue came up before last month's election, and Mr. Morrisey said
he couldn't discuss his office's role because the issue is a
pending legal matter.  "We're prohibited under the law from
discussing that," Morrisey said at the time on MetroNews Talkline.
"We care very deeply about these allegations. They're very
serious."

On Dec. 6, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office made a
similar statement.

"Our office and the Department of Transportation are engaged in
cooperative discussions to handle this matter appropriately. There
is no further comment at this time," Attorney General spokesman
Curtis Johnson stated in an emailed response.

Legislators on the Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on
Department of Transportation Accountability asked Mike Folio,
counsel for the DOT, to describe any participation by the Attorney
General's office.

"I've been having discussions with the AG, good positive
discussions -- we're going to work together on this," Mr. Folio
said.

That answer wasn't specific enough for Delegate Marty Gearheart,
chairman of the committee.  He asked the Transportation Department
to prepare a narrative for the next time the committee meets to
describe how and why outside counsel was selected instead of going
with lawyers from the Attorney General's office.

Folio told legislators that the price of asphalt had been the
subject of his attention since he started his job Jan. 1, 2015. In
response to a question about why a small town like Bluefield would
be ready to file a lawsuit before the State of West Virginia could
get its own case together, Mr.Folio said the state was nearly
ready by November but still needed to complete an analysis.

"We weren't really late," Mr. Folio said.

He was asked if the Attorney General's office turned down a role
in leading the lawsuit.

"I was not involved in those discussions," Mr. Folio responded.
"I think Mr. Morrisey wants to be involved and he should be
involved in this action.  I've had discussions with him and his
staff.  He has an interest in protecting the taxpayers with this
particular legal action."

James Bailey, legislative counsel for the committee and no
apparent relation to Bailey & Glasser, was asked similar questions
about the Attorney General's participation.

"I think it's an open question.  I wouldn't want to ultimately
state my opinion," Mr. Bailey said.  "There may be something else
that I'm not aware of.  As far as I can see, the Attorney General
should be representing."

The government agencies involved in the lawsuit claim competition
among asphalt suppliers has been suppressed to the point that
they're paying 40 percent more to pave roads and patch potholes
than they really should.

"The possible damages, which the state would be owed, is also
massive," Mr. Bailey told the committee.

The lawsuits contend that the asphalt suppliers have engaged in
predatory practices, undercutting and sometimes absorbing
competitors.  The lawsuit names West Virginia Paving as well as
several asphalt providers that are alleged to be either openly or
covertly related.

"Combined, the defendants are an industry colossus," the lawsuits
claim.

Senator Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson and the upcoming Senate
president, said he is frustrated that a Division of Transportation
audit didn't bring more attention to the possibility of inflated
asphalt prices.

"Is there anything within these bids that raises a red flag?"
Carmichael asked.

State Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox said some aspects of
paving contracts hadn't been adding up -- like a recent trend
toward single bids.

"We first became aware of it when had an analytical group take a
look at the bids -- the number of single-bid contracts the
department was getting," Mr. Mattox said.  "As a result of our
initial look at our bids, it raised a lot of red flags.  Since
that time, legal division has gathered information to prepare for
this court case."

Mr. Folio said the agency is paying increased attention to what's
happening with paving bids in other surrounding markets.

"We are looking region by region by region, measuring both cost
and quality," he said.

He said more and more related information is available digitally
and could be subject to comparison.

"You can see patterns of collusion or potential patterns of
collusion.  That's what we are doing from a programmatic
standpoint."

He said his own experience with potholes has led to personal
frustration.

"We are paying too much and we have inferior quality," Mr. Folio
said.


WALTER INVESTMENT: $24 Million Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
Florida court has entered an order finally approving the proposed
settlement and dismissing a shareholder class action.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint named as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On
January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company
and the individual defendants made material misstatements or
omissions relating to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance
with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Ditech
Financial, the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint
sought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision
that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions
in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims
relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,
among other things, added certain allegations concerning the
Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, the
Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to the
third amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegations
and asserted various defenses.

On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the court granted in substantial part on
March 16, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into an
agreement to fully resolve all claims that were asserted or could
have been asserted in the action for a total payment of $24
million, which is inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and all
other costs associated with the proposed settlement.

On June 13, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and directing that potential
members of the class be notified of the proposed settlement. On
October 17, 2016, the court entered an order finally approving the
proposed settlement and dismissing the action.

In accordance with the settlement agreement, certain insurers of
the Company have paid the full amount of the settlement into an
escrow account. The defendants, including the Company, did not
make any admission of liability or wrongdoing in connection with
the settlement.

Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the
Company, is a mortgage banking firm focused primarily on servicing
and originating residential loans, including reverse loans.


WATTS WATER: Still Awaits OK of $14-Mil. Deal in Connector Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., continues to await approval of $14
million settlement to resolve Connector Class Actions, 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
2, 2016.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26,
2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended
complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co.,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water Technologies was
voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks
among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement
costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which motion was temporarily withdrawn
pending final approval of the settlement.  After initial discovery
was conducted the parties agreed to a mediation of all claims,
which resulted in the below-referenced settlement.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors
(hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a
partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17,
2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional
named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the
original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc. was dismissed as a defendant. The complaint
seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs. On October 21, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to
dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part
on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint
on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

The Company participated in joint mediation sessions of the Ponzo
and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16,
2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims in both cases. The proposed total settlement amount is $14
million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately
$4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The
parties executed final written settlement agreements in April
2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were
submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal
Court and are pending with that Court.

The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval and final
court approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, the Company
says there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements will
be approved in their current form. If the settlements are not
approved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest
the allegations in these cases.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a
liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of
which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2
million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.5
million receivable was recorded in current assets related to
insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31,
2015, subject to a separate final written settlement agreement
that becomes effective if the class action settlement is approved.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is a supplier of products and
solutions that manage and conserve the flow of fluids and energy
into, through and out of buildings in the residential and
commercial markets of the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa
(EMEA) and Asia-Pacific.  For over 140 years, the Company has
designed and produced valve systems that safeguard and regulate
water systems, energy efficient heating and hydronic systems,
drainage systems and water filtration technology that helps
conserve water.


WELLS FARGO: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, "Wang" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Wang, Sat Narayan, Kaeran Sudmalis-Testi, Ihab Ghannam, And
Blanca Saenz, as individuals and on behalf of all legal persons
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Fifth Third Bank,
First Data Corp., Vantiv, Inc., National Processing Company,
International Payment Sevices, LLC d/b/a Elitepay Global, Brian
Bentley, Andrew Bentley, Adam Bentley, Ironwood Financial, LLC
d/b/a Ironwood Payments, Dewitt Lovelace, and John Lewis, Case No.
1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill. December 9, 2016), seeks to put an end to
the Defendants' practice of recording wireless telephone
conversations without prior express consent of the called party.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a National Banking Association
registered with the Comptroller of the Currency in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota with its headquarters in San Francisco,
California.

Fifth Third Bank is an Ohio banking corporation with its
headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.

First Data Corp. is a payment technology Solutions Company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Vantiv, Inc. is a payment processing and technology provider
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

National Processing Company is a merchant account provider in the
United States.

International Payment Sevices, LLC is a Nevada corporation with
its headquarters in Henderson Nevada and which operated a
telemarketing call center in Naperville, Illinois

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
      Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
      Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
      MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-2100
      E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
              jzolna@cherry-law.com


WIND RIVER: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Keith Ward, William Clark, Kody Clark, and all others similarly
situated v. Wind River Trucking, LLC d/b/a Wind River Oil Services
and Todd Bradford, Case No. 1:16-cv-00418-DLH-CSM (D.N.D.,
December 12, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
minimum wages and other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide trucking services associated with oil and
gas production and exploration in the Williston Basin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
      Andrew J. Walker, Esq.
      THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
      3501 Allen Parkway
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 526-2222
      Facsimile: (713) 526-2230


YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Securities Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend against the case, Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al.,

On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.
David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors. The complaint asserts both derivative claims,
purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims,
purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated
stockholders, relating to the termination of, and severance
payments made to, our former chief operating officer, Henrique de
Castro. The plaintiff claims that certain current and former board
members allegedly violated or acquiesced in the violation of the
Company's Bylaws when Mr. de Castro was terminated without cause,
and breached fiduciary duties by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding the value of his
severance. The plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. de
Castro. The plaintiff seeks to have the full Board reassess the
propriety of terminating Mr. de Castro without cause, potentially
leading to disgorgement in favor of the Company of the severance
paid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable accounting, monetary damages,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs. The Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied in part and
granted in part on July 27, 2016.


YAHOO! INC: UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend against the case, UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund v. Marissa
Mayer, et al.

On January 27, 2016, a stockholder action captioned UCFW Local
1500 Pension Fund v. Marissa Mayer, et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company, and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint asserts derivative claims,
purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, for violations of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
violations of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 124, and
violations of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200. The amended complaint seeks to rescind Yahoo's employment
contracts with the individual defendants because those defendants
allegedly caused Yahoo to illegally operate as an unregistered
investment company. The plaintiff seeks disgorgement in favor of
Yahoo, rescission, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In
addition, the amended complaint asserts a direct claim against
Yahoo for alleged violation of Delaware General Corporation Law
Section 124(1), based on the allegation that Yahoo has illegally
operated as an unregistered investment company. Pursuant to this
claim, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing Yahoo from
entering into any future contracts, including any contracts to
sell its assets. On October 19, 2016, the District Court dismissed
the amended complaint, with leave to amend.


YAHOO! INC: Faces "Stras" in N.D. Cal. Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Stras, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-06990-NC (N.D. Cal.,
December 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendant's failure to adequately protect its users' sensitive
personal information or itself from data breaches.

Yahoo! Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a host of
Internet websites and services, including web portal, search
engine and email service, among others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA  94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL  33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
              sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
              jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
      Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
      Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway, 34th Floor
      New York, NY  10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com
              crhodes@labaton.com
              rkamhi@labaton.com





                            *********

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  * * *