CAR_Public/170106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 5



                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Suits Over Data Breach Remain in Early Stages
ADVANCED CARE: Settlement Reached In Class Action Over Faxes
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: TCPA Class Suit Remains Pending in California
ALASKA: Governor Sued Over DOT Privatization
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action

ALLERGAN PLC: Faces "Forden" Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ALLERGAN PLC: Jan. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ALLERGAN PLC: GPM Reminds Investors of Jan. 3 Deadline
AMERICAN FARMLAND: Defends "Parshall" Suit Challenging Mergers
APPLIED MICRO: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Nygren" Suit Says

ATOSSA GENETICS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Cook" Suit Pending
AUDIOEYE INC: Yet to File Agreement in Securities Litigation
B/E AEROSPACE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: $335MM Settlement in PPSERS Suit Has Final Okay
BLUE BUFFALO: Appeal From Approval of Consumer Suit Deal Pending

BLUE BUFFALO: Consumer Class Suit in Ontario Remains Pending
BRIDGEVIEW BANK: Judge to Allow Lawsuit Over Loan Officer OT Pay
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Has Received $1.1-Mil. Settlement From Insurers
CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Nayab" Suit Over Credit Report Inquiries
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Patrocinio Suit
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Ruling in Public Attorneys' Suit
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Municipal Assoc. Suit vs. Cemig D Pending
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Suits Over Public Illumination Pending
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Enters Into MOU to Resolve Merger Suits

DICK'S SPORTING: TCPA Suit Results In Class Certification Denial
ELGIN-MIDDLESEX, UK: Loses Appeal to Quash Class-Action
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: GPM Reminds Investors of January 6 Deadline
ENSIGN UNITED: "Faulkner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Dougherty" Suit

ESSENTIA HEALTH: Did Not Monitor Pension Plan Costs, Suit Says
FIAT CHRYSLER: Named in Another Class Action Diesel Lawsuit
FIGI'S COMPANIES: Court Consolidates "Perez" and "Hamlet" Suits
FOUR OAKS: Two Suits vs. Bank Remain Pending in Fla. and N.C.
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Cryer" Suit

HARBOR TECH: Apartments Not Subject to Rent Stabilization
HINES REIT: To Seek Dismissal of Gamburg's Derivative Claims
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Wins Summary Judgment in "Powell" Suit
IDENTIV INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Rok" Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Faces Lawsuit Over Violations of Sex Offender Rights

ILLUMINA INC: Feb. 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Lundin Suit
INFILAW HOLDING: Law School Hid Accreditation Woes, Suit Says
INFUSYSTEMS HOLDINGS: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Jan. 9 Date
INSEEGO CORP: Faces "Goldsborough" Suit Over Sale to Novatel
ITERIS INC: Enters Into Settlement to Resolve "Ionni" Class Suit

J.R. SIMPLOT CO: Fails to Pay Overtime, Class Suit Says
KEY ENERGY: Defends Two Suits in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations
KEY ENERGY: Faces New Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
KEY ENERGY: "Marion" Class Suit Remains Pending in S.D. Texas
LA TAN: Settlement Raises Questions on Information Security

LEAP WIRELESS: Approval of Settlement in "Marino" Suit Affirmed
LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Garfield" Class Suit
MARRONE BIO: Wins Final OK of $12-Mil. Deal in Securities Suit
MYLAN: Lawsuits Over EpiPen Moving Forward
NATERA INC: Appeal From Ruling Remanding Cases Remains Pending

NEW ORIENTAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NIKITA LEVY: Payments in Class Action Lawsuit Revealed
NOVATION COMPANIES: New Jersey Carpenters Suit Remains Pending
P.A.M. TRANSPORT: "Browne" Action Seeks Wages and Damages
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Solak" Suit

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Class Suit vs. Radiancy Remains Pending in D.C.
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery in California Suit vs. Radiancy Ongoing
PORSCH CARS: Suit v. Settlement Administrators Faces Dismissal

PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Awaits Final OK of "Ramnath" Suit Deal
PULASKI COUNTY, IN: Faces "Hizer" Suit Over Courthouse Elevator
QUORUM HEALTH: Defends "Rao" Shareholder Class Suit in Tenn.
RESOURCE CAPITAL: "Levin" Suit Proceeds to Discovery
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defends 7 Class Suits in Cal. and Ill.

SAMARCO MINERACAO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Two Class Suits in Cal. & Nev.
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
TARSADIA HOTELS: Dismissal of Suit vs. Plaintiff Lawyers Affirmed
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

TESLA MOTORS: Faces Son Suit Over Sudden Unintended Acceleration
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Seeking Lead Plaintiffs
TOWERCOMM LLC: Unpaid Overtime Claimed in "Browder" Labor Suit
TRUSTCO BANK: Overtime Claimed in "Dejkunchorn" Labor Suit
TRXADE GROUP: Final Hearing on Family Medicine Accord on Feb. 21

TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Herbal Supplements MDL Pending in Illinois
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: "Mathews" Suit Remains Pending in Arkansas
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Zawada" Suit Sent to Arbitration
UNILEVER: Sued Anew Over St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub
UNILIFE CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Kansas AG Seeks Rejection of Deal to End Lawsuit
VITA-MIX CORP: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages & Overtime, Suit Says
WAL-MART: Wagner Jones Gets $54MM Settlement in Drivers' Suit
WILHELMINA INT'L: Awaits Decision on Bid to Toss "Shanklin" Suit
WILHELMINA INT'L: Proceedings in "Pressley" Suit Remains Stayed

WILHELMINA INT'L: Settlement Talks in "Betancourt" Still Ongoing
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation

* Consumer Action Creates Database For Class Action Collection


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Orders PPT Presentation Included in Record
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITW Loses Bid to Dismiss Butcher's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Charlevoix"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Inmate's Suits Dismissed as Frivolous
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Partly Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Execs Face High Court Action Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Alleges Man Died From Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Documentary Shines Light on Litigation Abuses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers Urged To See Dr. After Asbestos Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Alleges Exposure From Father's Clothing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Can Be Liable for 2nd-Hand Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Haven Man Convicted of False Statement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Fears Rise As Renovation Booms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Tenants Worry About Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Won't Rehear $8MM Deal Overturn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Names 186 Defendants in Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Firm Faces Felony Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Asbestos Deaths Set To Hit Record Levels
ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Hartford Inks Asbestos Reinsurance Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Will Ban Asbestos By 2018

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plum Creek Claim vs. WR Grace Discharged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss EFH Ch. 11 Petitions Denied


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Suits Over Data Breach Remain in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
lawsuits filed against it arising from the 2015 data breach remain
in the early stages.

On November 13, 2015, the Company was advised by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (the "FBI") that patient information was
illegally obtained by an unauthorized third party who may have
gained access to a Company database. The Company immediately hired
a leading forensic firm to support its investigation, assess its
system and bolster its security. Based on its investigation, the
Company determined that the intruder may have accessed the
database on October 3, 2015. The Company notified approximately
2.2 million current and former patients that certain information
may have been copied and transferred.

Following the data breach, the Company received notice that class
action complaints had been filed against the Company and certain
of its affiliates in Florida and California. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the Company failed to take the
necessary security precautions to protect patient information and
prevent the data breach. Several of the Florida complaints have
been consolidated. The Company expects additional claims to be
consolidated to the extent permitted by the courts. Because of the
early stages of these matters and the uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these
matters or estimate the amounts of, or ranges of, potential loss,
if any, with respect to these proceedings.

In addition, the Company has received a request for information
regarding the data breach and the Company's response from the
Office for Civil Rights as well as additional inquiries from State
Attorneys General. The Company has responded to each of those
inquiries and provided the information requested. The Company
could face fines or penalties as a result of these inquiries.
However, due to the early stages of these matters, The Company
cannot predict the ultimate resolution or estimate the amounts of,
or ranges of, potential loss, if any.

The Company says it has insurance coverage and contingency plans
for certain potential liabilities relating to the data breach.
Nevertheless, the coverage may be insufficient to satisfy all
claims and liabilities related thereto and the Company will be
responsible for deductibles and any other expenses that may be
incurred in excess of insurance coverage.

21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., is a global, physician-led
provider of integrated cancer care services.  The Company's
physicians provide comprehensive, academic quality, cost-effective
coordinated care for cancer patients in personal and convenient
community settings.


ADVANCED CARE: Settlement Reached In Class Action Over Faxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Regula at Legal News Line reports that unwarranted calls
and faxes from telemarketers are a major problem for both
companies and the population at large, leaving many who receive
them annoyed and angry.

A few have been angry enough to sue, as was the case with Advanced
Care Scripts Inc.

Advanced allegedly sent unsolicited faxes to an oncology clinic in
Louisiana. Those faxes were claimed to have violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, which states that express
consent must be given when faxes are solely sent for the purposes
of advertising.

While the TCPA includes various provisions, Advanced was sued in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana due
to the allegedly unsolicited faxes and because the company
purportedly did not include an opt-out option for the oncology
clinic involved in the class action lawsuit.

That clinic, Jefferson Radiation-Oncology LLC, filed its class
action in April 2015 on behalf of nearly 24,000 members -- people
and companies -- that claimed to have received unsolicited faxes
from Advanced.

"They brought the suit on behalf of the class," Julie D.
Hoffmeister, an attorney who co-wrote a blog post on the case with
a fellow lawyer, recently told Legal Newsline.

While it looks like the first unsolicited faxes weren't sent until
February 2015, there is other information detailing unsolicited
faxes that go as far back as 2011. Not to mention, Advanced
allegedly didn't have the consent of the clinic to send faxes in
the first place.

A settlement was reached, totaling $9.25 million. Each member of
the class who received an unsolicited fax from Advanced will be
awarded $500 to $1,500.

"A lot of defendants tend to settle instead of losing a greater
amount down the road," Hoffmeister explained.

Advanced initially tried to pin the blame on a third party,
WestFax Inc., which was the vendor Advanced hired to transmit the
faxes to Jefferson Radiation-Oncology. However, the liability
claims against WestFax were dismissed by a judge in July.

The lawsuit and subsequent settlement should serve as a reminder
to companies that they need to strictly abide by the TCPA at all
times, Hoffmeister said.

"Check TCPA standards and make sure you're complying with all the
requirements of the act," she said.


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: TCPA Class Suit Remains Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit over Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.'s
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
remains pending in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On December 30, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not
allege that Alarm.com violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold
us responsible for the marketing activities of our service
providers under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The
complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief, including attorney's fees. We answered
the complaint on February 26, 2016. On March 24, 2016, we filed a
motion to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia to be consolidated with 23
other similar and related pending TCPA actions. That motion was
denied on June 2, 2016."

Discovery has commenced, and the matter remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Based on currently available information, the Company determined a
loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., is one of the leading platform solution
for the connected home.  Through its cloud-based services, the
Company makes connected home technology broadly accessible to
millions of home and business owners.  The Company's multi-tenant
software-as-a-service platform enables home and business owners to
intelligently secure their properties and automate and control a
broad array of connected devices through a single, intuitive
interface.


ALASKA: Governor Sued Over DOT Privatization
--------------------------------------------
Jim Duncan at Alaska Native News reports that ASEA/AFSCME Local 52
filed a class-action grievance against Governor Walker and his
Administration on behalf of Alaska Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities construction design employees, whose duties will
be privatized under Gov. Walker's proposed FY2018 Operating
Budget.

In addition to cutting hundreds of positions to bridge Alaska's
fiscal gap, Governor Walker's budget includes plans to privatize
construction design work in the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities without performing a feasibility study or
providing an opportunity for the Union to submit alternate
proposals to retain State employees, as is required under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiated by the State of Alaska
and ASEA.

"That is a clear violation of the ASEA contract, and we don't
intend to stand by and let that go unchallenged," said Jim Duncan,
Executive Director of the Alaska State Employees Association.

As the FY2018 operating budget's own narrative explains, "There
are 11 Department of Transportation components with design staff.
Among the 11 components there are 76 design position eliminations
in this budget." The Governor's proposed budget overview reveals
that job losses will continue with "up to 300 more to follow in
future budgets."

"Governor Walker has made the decision to reduce the number of
State employees doing this work and move the money to bolster the
private-sector economy. That's a clear statement to me that the
decision has been made," Duncan said. "He's clearly violated the
requirement in our contract that feasibility studies need to be
done before the decision has been made.

"Article 13 of the ASEA Contract clearly states that the employer
has the right to identify cost savings opportunities or methods to
improve services. However, the Governor's budget doesn't reference
either of these. Instead, the justification is to move public
funds to bolster the private sector by privatizing the jobs of
many hard-working State employees," Duncan said. "It is clear that
this is not a cost reduction or efficiency approach-in fact, it
has been shown that in most cases shifting to the private sector
increases overall costs."

ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 represents more than 8,000 state and
municipal employees across Alaska.


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has filed a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of Boston Retirement System against
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its senior
executives.  The action, which is captioned Boston Retirement
System v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02127 (D.
Conn.), asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of investors in Alexion securities during the time
period of February 10, 2014 to December 9, 2016, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Alexion
reported false and misleading financial results that were inflated
through improper sales of a drug named Soliris.  The complaint
also alleges that Alexion misrepresented and concealed that the
Company had an effective marketing strategy for Soliris.  On
November 9, 2016, Alexion announced that it would be unable to
timely file its financial results because it was investigating
improper sales of Soliris.  Then, on December 12, 2016, Alexion's
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer resigned.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than January 17, 2017, which
is 60 days from the date that notice of pendency of the filing of
Juarez v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-08946-RMB
(S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 17, 2016) was published.  Any member of the
proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at --
avi@blbglaw.com --

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity.  Specializing in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.
Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest
and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering
billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces "Forden" Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Allergan faces a federal class action in Newark, N.J., from
shareholders over the drugmaker's 41 percent stock drop, from
$319.47 in 2015 to $188.82 in November, upon news that it could
face criminal charges for colluding to fix the prices of generic
pharmaceuticals.

The case is captioned, Timothy M. Forden, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan
PLC, Brenton L. Saunders, Paul M. Bisaro, Maria Teresa Hilado, and
R. Todd Joyce, Defendants., Case 2:33-av-00001 (D.N.J.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
     Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700

                    Carella Byrne's Statement

Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. disclosed
that a shareholder class action lawsuit filed against Allergan plc
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
in Newark, New Jersey and captioned Forden v. Allergan plc, et
al., case number 2:16-cv-9449(SDW)(LDW), has been assigned to the
Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J. and the Honorable Leda Dunn
Wettre, U.S.M.J. The action seeks relief for a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Allergan securities  between February 25, 2014 and  November 2,
2016, both  dates inclusive,  and damages under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies, and financial results. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Allergan's Actavis unit and several of its pharmaceutical
industry peers colluded to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the
foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust
laws; (iii) consequently, Allergan's revenues during the Class
Period were in part the result of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, Allergan's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Allergan securities during
the Class Period you have until January 3, 2017 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  To discuss this
action please contact James E. Cecchi or Donald A. Ecklund at
(973) 994-1700 or -- decklund@carellabyrne.com --

Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. has long
been recognized as one of the leading New Jersey law firms and has
significant experience in complex litigation, federal class action
litigation, intellectual property, corporate, health care, public
financing, environmental, labor, tax and administrative law.  For
additional information see http://www.carellabyrne.com/.


ALLERGAN PLC: Jan. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed against Allergan PLC and/or
Actavis plc and certain of its officers. This class action is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased Allergan
between February 25, 2014 and November 3, 2016, both dates
inclusive.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Both Allergan and Actavis were involved in and/or had
been involved in conduct that would result in an antitrust
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice; (2) the DOJ
investigation and the misconduct may instigate U.S. prosecutors to
file criminal charges against Allergan and Actavis for alleged
price manipulation; (3) as a result, Allergan and Actavis lacked
effective internal controls; and (4) consequently, public
statements by Allergan and Actavis were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/agn or contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in
Allergan, you have until January 3, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


ALLERGAN PLC: GPM Reminds Investors of Jan. 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the January 3,
2017 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Allergan PLC
securities between February 25, 2014 and November 3, 2016,
inclusive. Allergan investors have until January 3, 2017 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

On November 3, 2016, Bloomberg News published an article
disclosing a years-long investigation by the United States
Department of Justice into alleged price fixing by Allergan and
other generic drug producers.

According to the Complaint filed in this securities class action
lawsuit, Allergan made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: the Company and Actavis (an Allergan
subsidiary) engaged in conduct that would result in a Department
of Justice ("DOJ") antitrust investigation; that the DOJ
investigation and the underlying conduct could cause U.S.
prosecutors to file criminal charges against the Company by the
end of 2016 for suspected price collusion; that Allergan and
Actavis lacked effective internal controls; and that as a result
of the above, Allergan's and Actavis' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Note: On December 14, 2016, the United States Justice Department
accused two Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. executives of colluding
with other generic pharmaceutical companies to fix prices, the
first criminal charges stemming from a sweeping criminal
investigation into alleged price fixing by over a dozen generic
drug companies.

If you purchased Allergan shares, you may move the Court no later
than January 3, 2017 to request appointment as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.


AMERICAN FARMLAND: Defends "Parshall" Suit Challenging Mergers
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Farmland Company is defending itself and its subsidiaries
from a lawsuit challenging the mergers, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On September 12, 2016, the Company and American Farmland Company
L.P. (the "Operating Partnership") entered into a definitive
agreement and plan of merger with Farmland Partners Inc. ("FPI"),
Farmland Partners Operating Partnership, LP ("Farmland Partners
OP"), and certain of their respective subsidiaries, pursuant to
which the Company will merge with and into one of FPI's wholly
owned subsidiaries with such wholly owned subsidiary of FPI
surviving the merger (the "company merger.")

Pursuant to the merger agreement and prior to the company merger,
a Farmland Partners OP subsidiary will merge with and into the
Operating Partnership, with the Operating Partnership surviving as
a wholly owned subsidiary of FPI (the "partnership merger.")

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against the
Company, seeking to represent a proposed class of all Company
stockholders captioned Parshall v. American Farmland Company et.
al., Case No. 24C16005745. The complaint names as defendants the
Company, the members of the Company Board, American Farmland
Company L.P. (the "Operating Partnership"), Farmland Partners
Inc., Farmland Partners OP, Farmland Partners OP GP LLC, FPI
Heartland LLC, FPI Heartland Operating Partnership, LP and FPI
Heartland GP LLC.  The complaint alleges that the Company
directors breached their duties to the Company in connection with
the evaluation and approval of the mergers. In addition, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company, the
Operating Partnership, FPI, Farmland Partners OP, Farmland
Partners OP GP LLC, FPI Heartland LLC, FPI Heartland Operating
Partnership, LP and FPI Heartland GP LLC aided and abetted those
breaches of duties. The complaint seeks equitable relief,
including a potential injunction against the mergers.

The Company and FPI believe the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to defend against those allegations. The
Company and FPI cannot assure you as to the outcome of this
pending litigation, or any similar future lawsuits, including
costs associated with defending these claims, any other
liabilities that may be incurred in connection with the litigation
or settlement of these claims or any effect on the operations of
the Company or FPI or the timing in which the mergers are
completed.

American Farmland Company, a Maryland corporation, commenced its
operations in 2009, for the purpose of investing in farmland
principally located in the United States.  The Company conducts
all of its activities through American Farmland Company L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership.


APPLIED MICRO: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Nygren" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that
directors are selling Applied Micro Circuits Corp. too cheaply
through an unfair process to MACOM Technology Holdings, for $3.25
plus 0.11 MACOM shares per Applied Micro share, or $770 million,
shareholders say in a federal class action in San Francisco.

The case is captioned, KEVIN NYGREN, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. APPLIED MICRO
CIRCUITS CORPORATION, CESAR CESARATTO, PAUL R. GRAY, FRED SHLAPAK,
ROBERT F. SPROULL, DUSTON WILLIAMS, PARAMESH GOPI, and CHRISTOPHER
ZEPF, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-07400 (N.D. Cal., December 29,
2016).

Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin Nygren and the Proposed Class:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     One California Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 398-8700
     Fax: (415) 398-8704
     Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

          - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 337-1567
     Email: denright@zlk.com


ATOSSA GENETICS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Cook" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the lawsuit captioned
Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., remains pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint,
captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-
01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against us, certain of the
Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the
Company November 2012 initial public offering.  The complaint
alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and
that the Company and certain of its directors and officers
violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material
false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's
registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors
and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and
misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement
and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings
with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE
Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on
behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November
8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific
amount.

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014.

On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing
all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's
order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to
file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the
plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30,
2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015,
plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants' filed
their answering brief on April 13, 2015, and plaintiffs filed
their reply brief on May 18, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has
not been set.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to
defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be
reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been
recorded for these claims as of September 30, 2016. The costs
associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent
uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from
the conduct of the Company's business, will depend upon many
unknown factors and management's view of these may change in the
future.

Atossa Genetics Inc. was incorporated in 2009 in Delaware. The
Company was formed to develop and market medical devices,
laboratory tests and therapeutics to address breast health
conditions.  As a result of the sale of its laboratory business,
the Company is now focusing on development of its pharmaceutical
programs.


AUDIOEYE INC: Yet to File Agreement in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc., is yet to submit definitive documentation with
respect to its agreement to settle a consolidated securities
litigation, according to the Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2016.

In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and former officers Nathaniel Bradley and
Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. The plaintiffs allege various causes of action against
the defendants arising from our announcement that our previously
issued financial results for the first three quarters of 2014 and
the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year of
2014 could no longer be relied upon.  The complaints sought among
other relief, compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees
and experts' fees. The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and consolidated the actions. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed under the caption In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec.
Litigation. The Company and individual defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.

On July 25, 2016, in connection with a voluntary mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated actions. The settlement agreement is subject to
definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval.
The terms of the agreement include a settlement payment to the
class of $1,525,000 from the Company's insurer, with no admission
of liability by any party. In 2015, the Company paid a deductible
under its D&O insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 regarding
this matter.

AudioEye, Inc., was formed as a Delaware corporation on May 20,
2005. The Company focuses on providing its customers with the most
complete and inclusive web accessibility solution available. The
Company's suite of technologies allows its customers to provide
their site visitors with an enhanced web experience.


B/E AEROSPACE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, case no. 1:16-cv-25038, on behalf of
shareholders of B/E Aerospace, Inc. ("B/E Aerospace" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BEAV) who held B/E Aerospace securities and
have been harmed by B/E Aerospace's and its board of directors'
(the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the sale of the Company to Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Under the terms of the transaction, B/E Aerospace shareholders
will receive $34.10 in cash and $27.90 in shares of Rockwell
Collins common stock for each share of B/E Aerospace stock they
own, for a total value of $62.00 per share. The complaint alleges
that this offer is inadequate and alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed to protecting
shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde &
Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating
Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they
protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate
misconduct.

If you own common stock in B/E Aerospace and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of
charge, please visit us at www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations or
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at --
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- or by telephone at (212) 971-
1341.


BANK OF AMERICA: $335MM Settlement in PPSERS Suit Has Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, No. 11cv733 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge William H.
Pauley, III granted the Pennsylvania Public School Employees'
Retirement System's (PPSERS) motion for final approval of a $335
million settlement and plan of allocation with Bank of America
(BofA), the Executive Defendants, the Director Defendants, the
Underwriter Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The class action involves misleading statements regarding BofA's
reliance on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and
exposure to mortgage-backed security repurchase claims during the
2008 financial crisis.

The settlement covers a class consisting of purchasers of BofA
common stock between February 27, 2009 and October 19, 2010 and
creates a $335 million fund to compensate class members for losses
due to the alleged artificial inflation in the prices of BofA's
common stock during the time that each member held shares.  The
plan of allocation directs the lead counsel to reallocate any
funds remaining six months after the initial distribution among
those class members who have cashed initial checks.  Any residual
monies will then be donated to the New York Bar Foundation.

Judge Pauley found that the negotiation process leading to the
settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable.  The judge also
found that the settlement and plan of allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Judge Pauley also granted in part and denied, in part, the motion
filed by the law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Lead Counsel for
PPSERS, which sought approval of their request for attorneys' fees
and expenses stemming from their representation of the class.

Barrack, which has litigated on behalf of the class on a
contingency basis, sought approval of fees and expenses in the
following amounts, drawn from the settlement fund:

     (1) attorneys' fees of $51,675,000;

     (2) litigation expenses of $1,386,167.33; and

     (3) costs and expenses incurred by PPSERS as lead plaintiff
         in the amount of $130,323.70.

Over the course of the action, Barrack devoted the time of 42
attorneys and seven paralegals working at a blended rate of
approximately $450 per hour.  In total, Barrack recorded 77,026.25
billable hours for a lodestar of $34,450,696.50.

Judge Pauley concluded that it is with the assistance of able and
experienced counsel that the class obtained a favorable result
that obviates the uncertainties associated with summary judgment,
trial, and appeals.  The judge, however, found that two
interconnected billing practices in the case supported a reduction
in Barrack's fee application: the predominance of partner-level
work on the substantive aspects of the litigation, and the use of
temporary associates for the bulk of document discovery at
standard associate hourly rates.  Thus, the fee request was
approved in the reduced amount of $41,340,835.80.

Judge Pauley approved the motion for reimbursement of the expenses
from the settlement fund, finding that Barrack's itemized
litigation expenses reflect the traditional costs of maintaining a
complex securities action.

Lastly, Judge Pauley also approved the reimbursement of the lead
plaintiff's expenses.  The judge found that PPSERS actively
participated in this litigation throughout the action and should
be compensated for its time and effort in bringing about a
favorable result.  The judge also found that the amount requested
represents less than one hundredth of a percent of the settlement
fund, and is comfortably below the rate awarded in similar cases.

A full-text copy of Judge Pauley's December 27, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/gG7kdo from Leagle.com.

Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Arnold Gershon -- agershon@barrack.com --
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, David Avi Rosenfeld --
drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Patricia Grossberg Living Trust, Anchorage Police & Fire
Retirement System, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented by A.
Arnold Gershon, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.

Sjunde Ap-Fonden, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, KBC Asset
Management NV, Movants, represented by Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Local 338 Funds, Movant, represented by David A. Bishop --
dbishop@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Ira M. Press --
ipress@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Roger W. Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Andrew Martin McNeela -- amcneela@kmllp.com --
Kirby McInerney LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Forsta AP-Fonden, Movant, represented by A. Arnold Gershon,
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine & Jeffrey Alan Barrack --
jbarrack@barrack.com -- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.

Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by A. Arnold Gershon, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Jeffrey
Alan Barrack, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Jeffrey B. Gittleman --
jgittleman@barrack.com -- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, pro hac vice,
M. Richard Komins, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, pro hac vice, Mark
Robert Rosen -- mrosen@barrack.com -- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, pro
hac vice & William J. Ban, Barrack -- wban@barrack.com -- Rodos &
Bacine.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Christopher P.
Malloy, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, David Emmett
Carney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Scott Bailey, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP &
Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Brian T. Moynihan, Defendant, represented by Patrick J. Smith, DLA
Piper US LLP, Jeffrey David Rotenberg, DLA Piper US LLP, John
Michael Hillebrecht, DLA Piper US LLP & Samantha Noel Bent, DLA
Piper.

Charles H. Noski, Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Robert Jeffrey Jossen,
Dechert, LLP, Katherine Keely Rankin, Dechert, LLP & Scott D.
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Neil Cotty, Defendant, represented by Lawrence Jay Portnoy, Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, Brian Marc Burnovski, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P. & Charles S. Duggan, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

William P. Boardman, Frank Paul Bramble, Sr, Virgis William
Colbert, Charles K. Gifford, Jr., Charles Otis Holliday, Jr.,
Monica C. Lozano, Thomas John May, Thomas Michael Ryan, Robert W.
Scully, Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, Defendant, represented by
James J. Capra, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, Defendants, represented
by Charles S. Duggan, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Brian Marc
Burnovski, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & Lawrence Jay Portnoy,
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Cowen & Company, L.L.C., Daiwa Capital
Markets America Inc., Deutsche Bank Securties Inc., Gleacher &
Company Securities, Inc., Goldman & Sachs & Co, Keefe Bruyette &
Woods, Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc, Macquarie Capital (USA)
Inc., Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
National Australia Bank Limited, RBS Securities Inc., Samuel A.
Ramirez & CO., Inc., Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC, Santander
Investment Securities, Inc., Southwest Securities, Inc., Stifel
Nicholaus & Company, Incorporated, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc, UniCredit Capital Markets, Inc., Wells Fargo Securities,
LLC., ICBC International Securities Limited, Defendants,
represented by Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr LLP, Jacob David Zetlin-Jones, Wilmer, Cutler, Hale &
Dorr, L.L.P., Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice & Michael G. Bongiorno, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Samsung Securities Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Fraser Lee
Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

Brian T. Moynihan, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Patrick
J. Smith, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey David Rotenberg, DLA Piper US
LLP, John Michael Hillebrecht, DLA Piper US LLP & Samantha Noel
Bent, DLA Piper.

Charles H. Noski, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Robert Jeffrey
Jossen, Dechert, LLP & Katherine Keely Rankin, Dechert, LLP.

Kenneth D Lewis, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Colby A.
Smith, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP & Ada Fernandez Johnson, Debevoise
& Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice.

Joseph L. Price, Consolidated Defendant, represented by David M.
Locher, Baker Botts LLP, Harry Christopher Morgan, Baker Botts
LLP, pro hac vice, Julia E. Guttman, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice
& Richard Benjamin Harper, Baker Botts L.L.P.

Bank of America Corporation, Consolidated Defendant, represented
by David Emmett Carney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
pro hac vice.

Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated, UBS Securities
LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, ADR Providers, represented by
Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP,
Jacob David Zetlin-Jones, Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P.,
Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, pro
hac vice & Michael G. Bongiorno, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, ADR Provider,
represented by Yvonne Facchina Mizusawa, Board of Governors of The
Federal Reserve System.

Comptroller of the Currency, OCC, US Treasury Dept.,
Miscellaneous, represented by Ashley Wilcox Walker, Shearman &
Sterling LLP & Melton Amber, Federal Government - Office of The
Comptroller of The Curren.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its Corporate capacity,
Miscellaneous, represented by Thomas M. Clark, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.

                           *     *     *

James Comtois at Pensions & Investments reports that Judge William
H. Pauley III of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan approved the
cash settlement on Dec. 27.  Preliminary approval of the
settlement was made in late July.

PennPSERS was lead plaintiff on behalf of all investors that
sustained losses after buying Bank of America Corp. common stock
or common equivalent securities on a U.S. public exchange from
Feb. 27, 2009, through Oct. 19, 2010.

A news release from the plaintiffs' law firm, Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine alleged that Bank of America investors were misled during
the period above about the company's exposure to demands to
repurchase interests in mortgage-backed securities and other
mortgage loans that had been sold by the company and its legacy
entities.

The long-form notice of the settlement is available on the law
firm's website.


BLUE BUFFALO: Appeal From Approval of Consumer Suit Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from final court approval of Blue Buffalo Pet Products,
Inc.'s $32 million settlement of consumer class action lawsuits
remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

A number of related putative consumer class action lawsuits were
filed in various states in the U.S. making allegations similar to
Nestle Purina's and seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

The Company said: "We also brought damages and indemnity claims
against our former ingredient supplier and broker with respect to
the class action lawsuits. In December 2015, we entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve all of the
U.S. class action lawsuits (the "Settlement"). Under the terms of
the Settlement we agreed to pay $32.0 million into a settlement
fund, and on January 8, 2016, we paid this $32.0 million into an
escrow account pending final court approval. Attorneys' fees
awarded by the court and all costs of notice and claims
administration will be paid from the settlement fund."

The Settlement received final court approval on May 19, 2016, and
has since been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit. The amount that each class member who submits
a claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total
amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during
the class period and certain other conditions including whether
the claimant has a proof of purchase. The Settlement value does
not take into account any potential recovery from insurance or
from the Company's former ingredient supplier or broker, against
whom the Company will continue to pursue its claims for indemnity
and other damages.

Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in
July 2012 and conducts its business exclusively through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.
(formerly The Blue Buffalo Company, LLC) and its subsidiaries.
The Company and its subsidiaries develop, produce, market, and
sell pet food under the BLUE Life Protection Formula, BLUE
Wilderness, BLUE Basics, BLUE Freedom, and BLUE Natural Veterinary
Diet lines.


BLUE BUFFALO: Consumer Class Suit in Ontario Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the putative
class action lawsuit filed in Ontario, Canada, remains pending.

A putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Ottawa, Ontario, seeking damages and injunctive relief
based on allegations similar to those made in the U.S. class
actions.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and plan to
vigorously defend itself.

Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in
July 2012 and conducts its business exclusively through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.
(formerly The Blue Buffalo Company, LLC) and its subsidiaries.
The Company and its subsidiaries develop, produce, market, and
sell pet food under the BLUE Life Protection Formula, BLUE
Wilderness, BLUE Basics, BLUE Freedom, and BLUE Natural Veterinary
Diet lines.


BRIDGEVIEW BANK: Judge to Allow Lawsuit Over Loan Officer OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook Country Record reports that a Chicago
federal judge has signed off on an order certifying a class of
plaintiffs suing Bridgeview Bank for not properly paying its loan
officers.

U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso issued his memorandum opinion
and order Dec. 22, responding to the request of Lynn Jean Pieksma,
who was a mortgage banker at Bridgeview's office in Irvine,
Calif., from March through September 2013. She'd accused the bank
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly
pay loan officers minimum wage or overtime for time worked off the
clock, as well as allegedly illegally deducting minimum wage and
overtime compensation from paid commissions.

The class would include anyone who worked as a non-exempt loan
officer for the bank over the preceding three years; attorneys at
Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC of Leawood, Kan., would be appointed
class counsel. At the time of her filing, 15 similarly situated
loan officers from four Bridgeview offices filed consent petitions
to join as plaintiffs.

In its motion to strike the plaintiffs' declarations, Bridgeview
stated it paid overtime to Pieksma and many of the opt-in
plaintiffs. It said that between January 2013 and August 2015, its
loan officers earned nearly $600,000 in overtime compensation and
that in 2015 more than a third of loan officers reported working
overtime hours.

Bridgeview said Pieksma's complaint involved claims that were
"boilerplate, conclusory attorney-drafted statements that lack
specificity and are at times contradictory." The bank argued it
should have the chance to depose affected loan officers, obtain
answers to information collected during discovery and submit an
additional briefing before the judge ruled on the motion for class
certification.

Alonso noted Pieksma's complaint included 13 "nearly identical
declarations, except for personal identifiers, from (loan
officers) in three different offices and managers from a fourth,"
all indicating Bridgeview corporate officials passed on
information during training session indicating loan officers
usually worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay.
They also said "managers discouraged them from reporting all of
their overtime hours, that they regularly worked 'off the clock,'
and that they did not fully report all of the hours they worked."

He further said Pieksma's complaint made it clear she believed the
alleged FLSA violations took place at multiple bank offices. And
while Bridgeview argued the complaint relied on hearsay to allege
a company-wide policy, "those directives support the conclusion
that each declarant's manager knew that each declarant was not
fully reporting all of the hours he or she worked," Alonso wrote.

Bridgeview further agued its policies are FLSA complaint and any
deficiencies likely happened only when employees disregarded
corporate practice. It also said loan officers had access to time
cards to allow them to input and change their hours in the bank's
electronic timekeeping systems. Bridgeview monitors those reported
hours and said human resources departments send warnings to those
who don't keep accurate records. In at least one instance, the
bank said, it learned a loan officer failed to accurately record
overtime and then gave that employee back wages and overtime.

Alonso further noted the legal precedents Bridgeview tried to
supply in its defense all were significantly different from
Pieksma's claim, which raised a factual dispute of whether loan
officers worked off the clock.

Ultimately, the fact Bridgeview did pay some overtime wages "do
not negate the declarations in which loan officers indicate they
have not been paid all the overtime they are owed," he wrote.

Alonso granted conditional class certification and denied the
bank's motion to strike the claim.

Bridgeview Bank is represented in the action by the firm of Offit
Kurman P.A., with offices in Baltimore, Fulton and Bethesda, Md.;
and by attorney Christopher S. Griesmeyer, of Greiman, Rome and
Griesmeyer LLC, of Chicago.


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Has Received $1.1-Mil. Settlement From Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
it has received a settlement totaling $1,106,344, which partially
reimbursed the Company for amounts paid to settle both the Common
Stock Actions and the Preferred Stock Actions.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions"). In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger by failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc.
and ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest,
and that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided
and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action
further alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of
directors, and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG
Office Trust, Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of
directors.

On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County.

The three amended complaints, as well as the Dell'Osso Action
complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21, 2013 is false
and/or misleading because it fails to include certain details of
the process leading up to the merger and fails to provide adequate
information concerning MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s financial
advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint
amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board
of directors failed to disclose material information regarding
BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger was consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding, regarding a proposed settlement of
all claims asserted therein. The parties subsequently entered into
a stipulation of settlement dated November 21, 2013 providing for
the release of all asserted claims, additional disclosures by MPG
concerning the merger made prior to the merger's approval, and the
payment, by the defendants, of an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount not to exceed $475,000. After a hearing on
June 4, 2014, the California State Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement, and entered a Final
Order and Judgment, awarding the plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys'
fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000, which was paid by MPG
Office LLC on June 18, 2014.

On July 13, 2016, BPO and the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the insurance carrier under the MPG directors and
officers liability insurance policy that was in effect at the time
of the merger. On August 17, 2016, the Company received a
settlement totaling $1,106,344, which partially reimbursed the
Company for amounts paid to settle both the Common Stock Actions
and the Preferred Stock Actions. The Company included the
settlement in interest and other revenue in its condensed
consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2016.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the
Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants'
motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On
October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland
State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties
have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the
lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from
deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the
discussions.

On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff in the Cohen Action and the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding setting
forth an agreement in principle to settle the Preferred Stock
Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case with prejudice
in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of Series A
preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends (the "Dividend
Payment") to holders of record on a record date to be set after
final approval of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus
any attorneys' fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the
plaintiff's counsel. The dividend will reduce the amount of
accumulated and unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock,
and the terms of the Series A preferred stock will otherwise
remain unchanged.

On August 18, 2015, the Maryland State Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a final
fairness hearing for October 27, 2015. On September 28, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a motion for final certification of the settlement
class, final approval of the class action settlement and approval
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, seeking a total
fee and expense award of $5,250,000. The defendants submitted
their opposition to the plaintiff's fee application on October 13,
2015.

On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking
discovery related to the valuation of the Dividend Payment in
connection with its fee application and served related discovery
requests on the defendants. On October 23, 2015, the defendants
filed their opposition to that motion, as well as a motion for a
protective order precluding discovery. On October 27, 2015, the
Maryland State Court held a hearing to decide whether to grant
final approval of the settlement and to rule on the parties'
discovery motions. At the hearing, the Court ordered limited
discovery to occur prior to ruling on the fee application.

On October 28, 2015, the Maryland State Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement. The time to appeal the
order expired on November 30, 2015 without any appeals having been
filed. On December 4, 2015, in accordance with the final approval
order and the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, the
board of directors declared a cash dividend of $2.25 per share to
holders of record of its Series A preferred stock at the close of
business on December 15, 2015. On January 4, 2016, Brookfield DTLA
paid the Dividend Payment totaling $21.9 million using cash on
hand.

On December 16, 2015, after taking certain limited discovery
permitted by the Maryland State Court during the October 27
hearing, the plaintiff served the defendants with its reply
memorandum of law in support of its motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses. That same day, the plaintiff requested that the Court
permit it to file the reply memorandum and an exhibit thereto
under seal given the confidential nature of the information
contained therein. On December 17, 2015, the plaintiff provided
the Court with plaintiff's counsel's time records for the Court's
in camera review. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a
surreply to the plaintiff's reply memorandum after obtaining the
Court's permission to do so. After a hearing on April 6, 2016, the
Maryland State Court issued an order on April 18, 2016 granting an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiffs totaling
$2,212,688. On April 21, 2016, the Company paid the awarded amount
to the plaintiffs' counsel.

On July 13, 2016, BPO and the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the insurance carrier under the MPG directors and
officers liability insurance policy that was in effect at the time
of the merger. On August 17, 2016, the Company received a
settlement totaling $1,106,344, which partially reimbursed the
Company for amounts paid to settle both the Common Stock Actions
and the Preferred Stock Actions. The Company included the
settlement in interest and other revenue in its condensed
consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2016.

Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. is a Maryland
corporation and was incorporated on April 19, 2013.  Brookfield
DTLA was formed for the purpose of consummating the transactions
contemplated in the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April
24, 2013, as amended, and the issuance of shares of 7.625% Series
A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock in connection with the
acquisition of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and MPG Office, L.P.
Brookfield DTLA is a direct subsidiary of Brookfield DTLA Holdings
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and an indirect
subsidiary of Brookfield Office Properties Inc.

Brookfield DTLA owns BOA Plaza, EY Plaza, Wells Fargo Center-North
Tower, Wells Fargo Center-South Tower, Gas Company Tower and 777
Tower, each of which are Class A office properties located in the
Los Angeles Central Business District.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Nayab" Suit Over Credit Report Inquiries
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that  a
federal class action claims in San Diego, Capital One Bank submits
multiple credit report inquiries to nonparty Experian, for people
with whom Capital One has no business relationship, invading their
privacy and hurting their credit rating.

The case is, FRESHTA Y. NAYAB, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 16cv3111 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
     MASHIRI LAW FIRM
     A Professional Corporation
     11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
     San Diego, CA 92150
     Tel: (858) 348-4938
     Fax: (858) 348-4939
     E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

          - and -

     Tamim Jami, Esq.
     THE JAMI LAW FIRM RC
     3525 Del Mar Heights Rd#941
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858) 284-0248
     Fax: (858) 284-0977
     E-mail: tamim@jamilaw.com


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a consolidated securities litigation pending in New York,
according to the Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2016.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company
and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin,
Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F.
Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in
prior public filings certain material facts about the risks
associated with its loan guarantee business. On October 2, 2014,
purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun
Group") asserted substantially similar claims against the same
defendants in a putative class action captioned Zhang Yun v. China
Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.).
Neither complaint states the amount of damages sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff ("Class
Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that
point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to
transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On
December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined
in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court
entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was
effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-
00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to
file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against
defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities Inc.
and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter
Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company engaged in a
fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending
practices and made misleading representations regarding its
underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss
allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control
systems.

In accordance with the Court's procedures, the Company and Mr.
Levy and the Underwriter Defendants requested a Pre-Motion
Conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the CAC,
which was held on June 25, 2015. At the conference, the Court
adjourned the date to answer or move in order to provide the Class
Plaintiff with time to serve certain overseas defendants. After
the conference, the Class Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Jianming
Yin, Jinggen Ling and Xiangdong Xiao from the action, and Long Yi
agreed to waive service, which left Huichun Qin as the sole
remaining defendant to serve. The case remains stayed pending
service of Huichun Qin.

Two of the Underwriter Defendants, Axiom Capital Management, Inc.,
and ViewTrade Securities, Inc., have asserted their respective
rights to indemnification under the Underwriting Agreements
entered into in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering. On or about March 16, 2016, CCCR
entered into an Advance Funding and Escrow Agreement, under which
the CCCR agreed to deposit shares into escrow to fund the
advancement obligation, with the initial deposit to be shares
valued at Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), based upon 80%
of the 30 day volume weighted average Trading Price ("VWAP") for
each of the 30 consecutive trading days prior to the date of the
Agreement.

China Commercial Credit, Inc., is a holding company that was
incorporated in Delaware in 2011.  The Company is a microcredit
company primarily engaged in providing direct loans and financial
guarantee services to small-to-medium sized enterprises, farmers
and individuals in Wujiang City, Jiangsu Province, in the People's
Republic of China.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Patrocinio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG awaits a judgment in an
appeal in the lawsuit filed by the Regional Environmental
Association of Patrocinio, according to the Company's November 14,
2016, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Cemig, Cemig Generation and Transmission ("Cemig GT"), Southern
Electric and FEAM are defendants in a class action filed on
February 5, 2007 by the Regional Environmental Association of
Patrocinio, which involves a claim for indemnifying and redressing
environmental damages caused by the Nova Ponte hydroelectric power
plant. On March 11, 2016 the judge ruled in favour of the
defendants. On May 5, 2016 the Regional Environmental Association
of Patrocinio appealed and is currently awaiting judgment by the
Minas Gerais State Court of Appeals.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company says the amount involved in
this action was approximately R$1.8 billion. However, taking into
account the phase of the case, and the changes in the legislation
subsequent to the filing of the action, it was possible for the
technical staff to reappraise the claims and the amount to be
disbursed in the event of loss in the action. On December 31,
2015, the amount involved in this action was approximately R$314
million and the chances of loss have been assessed as possible;
however, due to a favorable decision on March 11, 2016 from the
judge in the class action the Company has revised the chances of
loss to remote.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG is a sociedade por
acoes, de economia mista (a state-controlled mixed capital
company) organized under the laws of the Federative Republic of
Brazil.  The Company runs a business related to generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity, gas
distribution, telecommunications and the provision of energy
solutions.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Ruling in Public Attorneys' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG still awaits decision
in the lawsuit commenced by the Brazilian Federal Public
Attorneys' Office, according to the Company's November 14, 2016,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
the Company and Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (the
Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency), or ANEEL, to avoid
exclusion of consumers from classification in the Low-income
Residential Tariff Sub-category, requesting an order for the
Company to pay 200% of the amount allegedly paid in excess by
consumers. Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the
plaintiffs. Cemig D and ANEEL have filed an interlocutory appeal
with the Regional Federal Appeal Court. A decision by the Court
has been pending since March 2008. On December 31, 2015 the amount
of the contingency was approximately R$222 million.

The Company has classified the chances of loss as possible due to
other favorable precedents, both in the judiciary and in the
administrative sphere, in favor of the argument put forward by
Cemig D.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG is a sociedade por
acoes, de economia mista (a state-controlled mixed capital
company) organized under the laws of the Federative Republic of
Brazil.  The Company runs a business related to generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity, gas
distribution, telecommunications and the provision of energy
solutions.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Municipal Assoc. Suit vs. Cemig D Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by the Municipal Association for Protection of
the Consumer and the Environment against a subsidiary of Companhia
Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG remains pending, the Company said
in its November 14, 2016, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cemig Distribuicao S.A. ("Cemig D") is defendant in several legal
actions, and in particular a class action files by the Municipal
Association for Protection of the Consumer and the Environment
(Associacao Municipal de Protecao ao Consumidor e ao Meio
Ambiente, or Amprocom), challenging amounts of tariffs charged by
the Company after 2002 and its method of calculation, and applying
for restitution, to all the consumers allegedly damaged in the
processes of Periodic Review and Annual Adjustment of tariffs, in
the period 2002 to 2009, of any amounts allegedly unduly charged.

At December 31, 2015, the Company says the amount involved in this
action was R$276 million. The chances of loss in this action have
been assessed as possible, due to the fact that there is no
precedent.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG is a sociedade por
acoes, de economia mista (a state-controlled mixed capital
company) organized under the laws of the Federative Republic of
Brazil.  The Company runs a business related to generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity, gas
distribution, telecommunications and the provision of energy
solutions.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Suits Over Public Illumination Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits arising over calculation of the consumption of
electricity for public illumination remain pending, Companhia
Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG said in its November 14, 2016,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cemig is defendant in several public civil actions (class
actions), claiming nullity of the clause in the Electricity Supply
Contracts for public illumination, signed between the Company and
the various municipalities of its concession area, and restitution
by the Company of the difference representing the amounts charged
in the last 20 years, in the event that the courts recognize that
these amounts were unduly charged. The actions are grounded on a
supposed mistake by Cemig in the estimate of time that was used
for calculation of the consumption of electricity for public
illumination, funded by the Public Illumination Contribution
(Contribuicao para Illuminacao Publica, or CIP).

The Company believes it has arguments of merit for defense in
these claims, since the charge at present made is grounded on
Aneel Normative Resolution 456/2000. As a result it has not
constituted a provision for this action, the amount of which is
estimated at R$1,232 (R$1,457 on December 31, 2014). It has
assessed the chances of loss in this action as 'possible', due to
the Consumer Defense Code (Codigo de Defesa do Consumidor, or CDC)
not being applicable, because the matter is governed by the
specific regulation of the electricity sector, and because Cemig
complied with Aneel Resolutions 414 and 456, which deal with the
subject.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG is a sociedade por
acoes, de economia mista (a state-controlled mixed capital
company) organized under the laws of the Federative Republic of
Brazil.  The Company runs a business related to generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity, gas
distribution, telecommunications and the provision of energy
solutions.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Enters Into MOU to Resolve Merger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that it entered into a
memorandum of understanding to resolve merger-related lawsuits.

On March 12, 2015, the Company completed the merger ("Merger")
with Spansion Inc. ("Spansion") pursuant to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of December 1, 2014 (the
"Merger Agreement"), for a total consideration of approximately
$2.8 billion. In accordance with the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Spansion shareholders received 2.457 Cypress shares for
each Spansion share they owned.

The Company said, "After our announcement of the merger between
the Company and Spansion Inc. in December 2014, two separate
putative class action complaints (Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc.,
et. al. (No. 114-cv-274635) and Shiva Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc.,
et. al. (No. 114-cv-274924)) were filed in Santa Clara County
Superior Court in December 2014, alleging claims of breach of
fiduciary duty against Spansion's board of directors and naming
Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged breach
of fiduciary duty. While Cypress believes these lawsuits to be
meritless, Spansion and Cypress entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs, the terms of which required
additional disclosures by the Company and payment of nominal
attorneys' fees to the class counsel. Final resolution of these
litigations matters will require court approval of a final
settlement agreement."

Due to the current stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the loss or the range of possible loss, if
any.

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation manufactures and sells advanced
embedded system solutions for automotive, industrial, home
automation and appliances, consumer electronics and medical
products. Cypress's programmable systems-on-chip, general-purpose
microcontrollers, analog ICs, IoT and USB-based connectivity
solutions and memories help engineers design differentiated
products and help with speed to market.


DICK'S SPORTING: TCPA Suit Results In Class Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Stone of Legal News Line reports that a class action
against Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. was recently denied class
certification by California federal judge, U.S. District Judge
Cormac J. Carney, because the plaintiff was ruled to be an
inadequate class representative.

Phillip Nghiem alleged that the sporting goods retailer had
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According
to evidence presented by Dick's, Nghiem was responsible for
signing up for multiple mobile alert programs in addition to
signing up for Dick's program during the time his law firm had
previously alerted Dick's of possible TCPA violations. Nghiem is
also currently a plaintiff's attorney specializing in consumer
disputes, according to the evidence brought forth by Dick's.
Carney based his ruling on this particular set of evidence,
stating that Nghiem was not an adequate class representative, and
that his allegations were atypical of other consumers in the
class.

"The court determined that the named plaintiff, Phillip Nghiem,
was not an adequate class representative based on a simple test,"
Kathryn Rattigan, attorney at Robinson & Cole LLP, told Legal
Newsline. "The class representative must fairly and adequately
represent the interests of absent class members."

According to Rattigan, in this particular case, the court
determined that class certification was improper because the
interests of Nghiem and the class conflicted, and therefore the
class could not be certified. In his decision, Mr. Carney also
stated that the 9th Circuit authority prohibits district courts
from granting class certification if there is a danger that absent
class members will suffer if their representative presents a
conflict of interest of atypical defenses.

"Many courts have been looking to Spokeo v. Robins for guidance on
standing," Rattigan said. "Here, the court ruled that the
plaintiff had a concrete and particularized injury using the
Spokeo ruling as its foundation. However, in Spokeo, the court
ruled, 'Harm does not mean that a plaintiff automatically
satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants
a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person
to sue to vindicate that right. Article III standing requires a
concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.'"

"But here, the court determined that standing existed because TCPA
violations necessarily cause harm to consumers, unlike the Fair
Credit Reporting Act claims that were at issue in Spokeo,"
Rattigan continued. "The TCPA sets a standard that any autodialed
texts or pre-recorded telephone calls are prohibited without prior
express consent from the consumer because of the undue cost to
consumers (particularly when the text or call is to a mobile
telephone number), the nuisance caused by such texts and telephone
calls, and consumers' privacy interests."

Mr. Carney ruled that TCPA violations necessarily cause harm to
consumers, and thus such claims can satisfy the Supreme Court's
ruling in Spokeo v. Robins. Nghiem filed his complaints for the
class action lawsuit in January, claiming Dick's violated the TCPA
on at least eight occasions when text messages were sent to his
cellphone by an automatic telephone system after he alleges he
revoked his consent to receive them.


ELGIN-MIDDLESEX, UK: Loses Appeal to Quash Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Randy Richmond of lfpress.com reports that the province can't stop
a landmark lawsuit over conditions at its embattled London jail --
conditions highlighted in a surprising video, obtained by The Free
Press, that was taken by an inmate who smuggled in his phone and
freely videotaped his cell and range.

Superior Court dismissed the Ministry of the Attorney General's
appeal of a $325-million class-action suit over the treatment of
inmates at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC).

That means the class-action suit, the first of its kind in Ontario
and potentially representing 6,000 former inmates, can go ahead --
the final legal hurdle for London's McKenzie Lake law firm, which
is the quickest out of the gate in what is shaping up to be a
series of class-action suits over jail conditions in Ontario.

"We're looking forward to moving forward," lawyer Kevin Egan said.

A glimpse of the conditions and the lack of supervision alleged in
the lawsuit surfaces in a cell phone video taken inside EMDC, the
existence of which is almost more shocking than what is seen.

The Free Press recently received clips from the video and still
photographs, and edited out or blurred scenes that show inmates'
faces.

Somehow an inmate smuggled a cell phone into what's known as a
welfare cell at EMDC.

These rooms used to be used for programming but as the inmate
population in Ontario grew, were converted into cells with room
for three people in bunks and five if the floor is used.

Regular cells on the range were outfitted with closets and radios
-- few of them working well. The welfare cells may be so called
because they lack radios and their design doesn't allow inmates to
watch the range television, Egan said.

"We're in the welfare cell. It's s---," an inmate on the video
says.

"It's the best room . . ." another adds.

The video and photos show a mess of litter on the floor by the
toilet, and an inmate sleeping nearby. The inmate shooting the
video provides a quick tour of the cell, then the range and the
showers.

At one point, another inmate is seen bending over the toilet, with
what appears to be a towel, draining water out.

"This is how we smoke weed. We bail the toilet," the videotaping
inmate says with a laugh.

Inmates are known to exhale smoke into the empty bowl and drain of
the toilet, which acts as kind of an air duct taking away the
smoke and smell.

A towel is left over the bowl to ensure the smoke stays out of the
cell.

"It underlines the filth. It also shows that people are sleeping
on the floor, and there is no supervision," Egan said. "They are
smoking dope in the cell."

Correctional officers blame the lack of supervision at EMDC on
short-staffing and the design of the building that puts officers
in a station down the hall from the range and unable to view the
cells except by monitors. There are regular work refusals at EMDC
when officers believe they don't have enough help to safely and
properly supervise inmates.

After years of inquests into jail deaths and calls for change from
advocates, the province finally seems to be shaken loose by legal
action, with a spate of announcements about changes this fall,
Egan said.

"It's a powerful tool to effect change. They have to make changes
or they face the threat of continued litigation."

Launched in 2013, the lawsuit claims the "overcrowded, unsanitary
and unsafe conditions" and lack of supervision at EMDC violate the
inmates' Charter rights to "life, liberty, and security," and "not
to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

The province fought certification of the class-action suit,
suggesting the inmates' experiences were too varied to be grouped
together and inmates have other ways to seek redress, such as
making a complaint in writing to the jail superintendent.

In August 2016, Superior Court Justice Duncan Grace certified the
class-action suit, allowing it to go ahead.

But the province sought leave to appeal that decision. In a
decision released this week, Superior Court Justice Ian Leach
dismissed that leave to appeal.

The province has promised to hire hundreds of new officers across
Ontario, with some already working at EMDC and other institutions.

In the fall, the government also announced a review of the
structural problems inside Ontario's jails, although the focus is
so far on segregation units -- used largely to warehouse mentally
ill patients at risk of harm in general population ranges.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: GPM Reminds Investors of January 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the January 6,
2017 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Endo International plc ("Endo" or the "Company") (NYSE:
ENDP) securities between September 28, 2015 and November 2, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Endo investors have until January
6, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Bloomberg News has reported that the U.S. Justice Department may
file a complaint against the Company and other alleged co-
conspirators for fixing generic drug prices. The companies
identified as targets or relevant parties in the United States
investigation include Mylan NV, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd, Allergan Plc, Lannett Co., Impax Laboratories Inc., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Mayne Pharma Group Ltd., Endo
International Plc and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

On this news, Endo stock fell $6.25 per share, or nearly 27%, to
close at $17.25 per share on November 3, 2016.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Endo's subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, had colluded with
several of its industry peers to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the
foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust
laws; (iii) consequently, Endo's revenues during the Class Period
were in part the result of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, Endo's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Note: On December 14, 2016, the United States Justice Department
accused two Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. executives of colluding
with other generic pharmaceutical companies to fix prices, the
first criminal charges stemming from a sweeping criminal
investigation into alleged price fixing by over a dozen generic
drug companies.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Endo shares during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 6, 2017
to request appointment as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the
class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.


ENSIGN UNITED: "Faulkner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Rickie Faulkner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ensign United States Drilling
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03137, (D. Colo., December 20,
2016), seeks to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, expenses, costs of court, and pre and post judgment
interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the North
Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order.

Ensign United States Drilling Inc. is the American operational arm
of Ensign Energy Service, Inc., a Canadian publicly traded company
into land-based drilling and well servicing, which operates in
every major oil field in the United States, including those in
North Dakota, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Texas. Plaintiff worked
for Defendant as a rig manager for approximately fifteen years and
in North Dakota during the last two years, typically working more
than 40 hours in week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Dougherty" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur J. Tarnow granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint in the case captioned KEVIN L.
DOUGHERTY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-10089 (E.D. Mich.).

A securities fraud class action was filed against Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, and
its Chief Executive Officer, Tim M. Mayleben.  The plaintiffs, a
class of investors who purchased Esperion common stock between
August 18, 2015 and September 28, 2015, alleged that the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Esperion allegedly made false statements to the plaintiffs about
what occurred at an August 2015 meeting between Esperion and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and failed to disclose
material facts about the development of ETC-1002, a medication
designed to lower elevated levels of lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-
C).  Esperion's deceit regarding its business, according to the
plaintiffs, operated as a fraud and caused the plaintiffs to
transact in Esperion common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' action is a "fraud by
hindsight" case, exactly the kind that the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) was designed to prevent.  They
characterized this as a "knee jerk lawsuit by opportunistic
plaintiffs whenever a company's stock price drops."  The
defendants asked the Court to dismiss the Complaint for three
reasons:

     1) there can be no strong inference of scienter when the
        plaintiffs have not alleged that the defendants knew that
        any statements were materially false or misleading when
        made;

     2) the plaintiffs have not specified why or how any
        statements were misleading when made; and

     3) the defendants' statements were forward-looking and
        therefore immune from liability under the PSLRA.

Judge Tarnow granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The judge
held that the PSLRA imposes strict pleading requirements that the
plaintiffs have failed to satisfy.  Judge Tarnow found that the
plaintiffs have not stated with particularity any facts giving
rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with a
knowing and deliberate intent to manipulate, deceive, or defraud.
Furthermore, the judge stated that a reasonable person would
conclude that the inference of scienter in this case is not as
strong as the opposing inference of non-culpability.

A full-text copy of Judge Tarnow's December 27, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/Lualdw from Leagle.com.

Kevin L Dougherty, Plaintiff, represented by Sharon S. Almonrode -
- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Tim M Mayleben, Defendants,
represented by Adam Slutsky -- aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP, Deborah S. Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, Katherine M. Anthony --
kanthony@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Matthew J.
Boettcher -- mboettcher@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett & Cooney.

Roger Jolicoeur, Movant, represented by Thomas L. Laughlin, IV --
tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott & Scott LLP.

Daniel Lee Martin, Movant, represented by Lance C. Young --
lyoung@sommerspc.com -- One Towne Square.

AURELIO SCARPATETTI, Movant, represented by Edmond Prifti, Sachs
Waldman Professional Corporation.

Brian Berberian, Movant, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty --
pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP.

Ronald E Wallace, Walter J Minett, Movants, represented by Sharon
S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Ryan A. Llorens --
ryanl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.


ESSENTIA HEALTH: Did Not Monitor Pension Plan Costs, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of retirement plan
participants and beneficiaries claims in a federal lawsuit in
Minneapolis, that Essentia Health did not monitor and control the
plan's escalating costs, causing it to lose millions of dollars.

The lead plaintiff is Mark Morin. The defendants are Essentia
Health, St. Mary's Duluth Clinic Health System, the Essentia
Health Investment Committee, Diane T. Davidso, and John Does 1-30,
Case No. 0:16-cv-04397 (D. Minn., December 29, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     J. Ashwin Madia, Esq.
     Joshua Newville, Esq.
     Cody Blades, Esq.
     345 Union Plaza
     MADIA LAW LLC
     333 Washington Avenue North
     Minneapolis, MN  55401
     Tel: 612.349.2723
     Fax: 612.235.3357
     E-mail: jamadia@madialaw.com

         - and -

     NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
     Kai H. Richter, Esq.
     Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
     Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
     4600 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: 612-256-3200
     Facsimile: 612-338-4878
     E-mail: krichter@nka.com
             cengstrom@nka.com
             bmcdonough@nka.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Named in Another Class Action Diesel Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern at FC Authority reports that Fiat Chrysler and
Cummins have been named in a second class action lawsuit alleging
the companies used a cheat device on certain heavy duty Ram
pickups in order to fool regulators and skirt emissions laws.

According to The Detroit News, the class action suit was filed in
the United States District Court in Detroit. It alleges both FCA
and diesel engine supplier Cummins knowingly installed software in
6.7-liter diesel-equipped Ram pickups that would hide the trucks'
true emissions levels. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for
damages and other monetary relief.
Both FCA and Cummins vehemently deny the allegations.

Additionally, the U.S. environmental protection agency and other
regulators have yet to accuse either entity of using a cheat
device on the 6.7-liter diesel engine.

"Based on the information available to it, FCA US does not believe
that the claims brought against it are meritorious," an FCA
spokesperson said in a statement. "FCA US will contest this
lawsuit vigorously."

"We're deeply disappointed in the effort to tarnish our image and
we will vigorously defend ourselves," Cummins spokesman Jon M.
Mills said. "We've had a great partnership with Chrysler for more
than 30 years and our companies continue to be committed to
putting our customers first."

The lawsuit is the second of its type filed against FCA this year.
In early December, a class action suit filed in California accused
it of using a cheat device in Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee
models equipped with the automaker's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 -
which is provided by Italian supplier VM Motori. FCA also denies
those allegations.


FIGI'S COMPANIES: Court Consolidates "Perez" and "Hamlet" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Irene C. Berger granted Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc.'s
motion to consolidate the cases captioned SANDRA PEREZ, Plaintiff,
v. FIGI'S COMPANIES, INC. and CHARMING SALES CO. ONE, INC.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-13559 (S.D.W.Va.); and
CONTESSA HAMLET, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA
COUNTY, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-04851
(S.D.W.Va.).

Contessa Hamlet, Sandra Perez, and Dorothy Thompson, initiated a
class action suit in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West
Virginia, on April 22, 2016.  They named the following debt
collection agencies as defendants: Credit Bureau of Napa County,
d/b/a Chase Receivables, Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc.,
Credit Management, LP, Bonded Collection Corporation, I.C. System
Inc., Omni Credit Services, Inc., Plaza Associates, Professional
Recovery Consultants, Inc., and Van Ru Credit Corporation.

The Hamlet plaintiffsd allege that they incurred debts owed to
Figi's Inc. (now known as Charming) and/or Figi's Companies, Inc.
The Hamlet defendants contracted with Figi's, Charming, or both,
to collect the debts.  Figi's and/or Charming added a collection
fee to the plaintiffs' accounts prior to contracting with the
defendants to collect the debts, which the plaintiffs asserted is
in violation of West Virginia law.  The defendants sent the
plaintiffs (and all proposed class members) letters seeking to
collect the debts, including the collection fees.

The Perez plaintiff, meanwhile, contended that, prior to
transferring the accounts to the collection agencies, Charming
and/or Figi's mailed letters to a substantially similar class of
debtors, advising that, absent prompt payment, the allegedly
unlawful collection fee would be added to their accounts and the
accounts would be referred to collection agencies.

Alliance moved for consolidation, arguing that both Perez and
Hamlet "arise out of the same set of core operative facts and
law."  Alliance further asserted that the proposed class members
will likely be largely the same.  In addition, Alliance stressed
the risk of double recovery and inconsistent adjudications absent
consolidation.

The plaintiffs did not oppose consolidation, and defendants I.C.
System, Inc., and Credit Management, LP, the only other Hamlet
defendants to file any response to the motion for consolidation,
noted their lack of opposition.  Figi's and Charming, however,
vigorously oppose consolidation.  They argued that the two matters
involve different letters, which should be evaluated
independently, and that Perez would likely be delayed by
consolidation, in view of its more advanced stage in litigation.

Judge Berger found that consolidation is appropriate.  "In short,
the proposed class action plaintiffs asserted that Charming and
Figi's threatened to -- and did -- illegally add collection fees
to their accounts, and then referred their accounts to collection
agencies that proceeded to attempt to collect the unlawful fees.
In Perez's case, and likely the cases of most proposed class
members, the two cases involve the same debt and the same
allegedly unlawful collection fee.  Although the letters sent by
Figi's or Charming are not identical to those sent by the
collection agencies, the core legal issue of the lawfulness of the
collection fee is the same in both cases.  The factual issues are
also overlapping and interconnected.  Indeed, given the
progression of events, there is more risk of confusion if the
cases remain separate than if they are tried together, with each
Defendant available to clarify its role.  Consolidation will
alleviate the significant risks of confusion and inconsistent
judgments.  Despite the concerns cited by the Perez parties, there
is no reason for consolidation to interfere with efforts to
mediate or settle either the entire, consolidated case or any
portion of the case, including the Perez allegations," explained
the judge.

A full-text copy of Judge Berger's December 28, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/GNc8hN from
Leagle.com.

Contessa Hamlet, Sandra Perez, Dorothy Thompson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher B. Frost, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG &
POLLARD, Jed Robert Nolan, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD,
Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER, Patricia M. Kipnis -- pkipnis@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY
& GLASSER, Ralph C. Young, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD,
Sandra Henson Kinney -- skinney@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER & Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG &
POLLARD.

Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Albert C. Dunn, Jr. -- adunn@baileywyant.com -- BAILEY & WYANT &
Michael D. Alltmont -- malltmont@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS
FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice.

Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Webster J. Arceneaux, III -- wjarceneaux@lgcr.com -- LEWIS GLASSER
CASEY & ROLLINS.

Credit Management, LP, I.C. Systems, Inc., Defendants, represented
by John William Burns -- jburns@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES.

Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher J. Sears, CIPRIANI & WERNER.

Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Webster J. Arceneaux, III, LEWIS GLASSER CASEY &
ROLLINS.

Charming Sales Co. One, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented
by John Joseph Meadows -- john.meadows@steptoe-johnson.com --
STEPTOE & JOHNSON & Peter J. Raupp -- peter.raupp@steptoe-
johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON.

Figi's Companies, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Aron
J. Frakes -- afrakes@fredlaw.com -- FREDRIKSON & BYRON, pro hac
vice, Bruce M. Jacobs -- bjacobs@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS
& BATTLE, Neva G. Lusk -- nlusk@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE & Rachna B. Sullivan -- rsullivan@fredlaw.com -- FREDRIKSON
& BYRON, pro hac vice.

Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Albert C. Dunn, Jr., BAILEY & WYANT & Michael D.
Alltmont, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice.

Charming Sales Co., One, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented
by John Joseph Meadows, STEPTOE & JOHNSON & Peter J. Raupp,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON.

Figi's Companies, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Aron
J. Frakes, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, pro hac vice, Bruce M. Jacobs,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Neva G. Lusk, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE &
Rachna B. Sullivan, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, pro hac vice.


FOUR OAKS: Two Suits vs. Bank Remain Pending in Fla. and N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits involving Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company
remain pending in Florida and North Carolina, according to Four
Oaks Fincorp, Inc.'s November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, named
Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company as one of the defendants. The
lawsuits allege that, by processing Automatic Clearing House
transactions indirectly on behalf of "payday" lenders, the Bank is
illegally participating in an enterprise to collect unlawful debts
and is therefore liable to plaintiffs for damages under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
lawsuits also allege a variety of state law claims. The Bank moved
to dismiss each of these lawsuits.

As previously reported, the Georgia action was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs and the District of Maryland granted
the motion and dismissed the case, which the parties subsequently
settled while on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

Of the two remaining lawsuits, there are no updates to the lawsuit
in the Southern District of Florida, which, as previously
reported, has been stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff's
claims against the Bank's co-defendants. The Middle District of
North Carolina granted the Bank's motion to dismiss in part and
denied it in part; the case against the Bank has been stayed
(except for limited discovery) pending an appeal by the Bank's co-
defendants.

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

Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc., is a bank holding company incorporated
under the laws of the state of North Carolina.  The Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary is Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Cryer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., awaits decision on its motion to dismiss
the putative class action lawsuit titled Cryer v. Franklin
Resources, Inc., et al., according to the Company's November 14,
2016, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the annual period ended September 30, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Cryer
v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan ("Plan")
Investment Committee, and unnamed Investment Committee members.
The plaintiff attempts to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, alleging
that the defendants selected mutual funds sponsored and managed by
the Company (the "Funds") as investment options for the Plan when
allegedly lower-cost and better performing non-proprietary
investment vehicles were available. The plaintiff also claims that
the total Plan costs, inclusive of investment management and
administrative fees, are excessive. The plaintiff alleges that
Plan losses exceed $88.0 million and seeks, among other things,
damages, disgorgement, rescission of the Plan's investments in the
Funds, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Franklin filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion for
summary adjudication on October 24, 2016.

Management strongly believes that the claims made in the lawsuit
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
Franklin cannot predict with certainty, however, the eventual
outcome of the lawsuit or whether it will have a material negative
impact on the Company.

Franklin Resources, Inc., is a holding company that, together with
its various subsidiaries, operates as Franklin Templeton
Investments(R).  The Company and its subsidiaries are a global
investment management organization that provides investment
management and related services to retail, institutional and high
net-worth clients in jurisdictions worldwide.  They offer their
investment products and services under their Franklin(R),
Templeton(R), Franklin Mutual Series(R), Franklin Bissett(R),
Fiduciary Trust(TM), Darby(R), Balanced Equity Management(R),
K2(R) and LibertyShares(TM) brand names.


HARBOR TECH: Apartments Not Subject to Rent Stabilization
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON BARTIS, ETC., ET AL., Appellants, v.
HARBOR TECH, LLC, Respondent, 2014-08569, Index No. 501635/13
(N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Supreme
Court, dated June 16, 2014, and entered in Kings County, which
denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that
their apartments are subject to rent stabilization and for class
action certification pursuant to CPLR article 9, and granted the
defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, in effect,
declaring that the plaintiffs' apartments are not subject to rent
stabilization and for summary judgment dismissing the second
through fourth causes of action and so much of the first cause of
action as sought injunctive relief.

In April 2013, 35 named plaintiffs commenced a putative class
action lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of hundreds of similarly situated current and former
tenants of a building complex located at 14 Verona Street, 5
Delevan Street, and 19 Delevan Street in the Red Hook neighborhood
of Brooklyn.

The first cause of action sought a judgment declaring that the
plaintiffs' apartments were subject to rent stabilization pursuant
to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (ETPA) and an
injunction directing the defendant to revise all leases in
accordance with the rent stabilization rules.

The second cause of action sought to recover damages for
"promissory estoppel," based on allegations that the plaintiffs
did not assert their rights under the rent stabilization rules
because of the defendant's "promises" to them that the units they
rented were not subject to rent regulation.

The third cause of action sought to recover damages and equitable
relief based upon "illegality" and "mistake of contract" as a
result of the fact that the plaintiffs' leases contained "illegal,
false and/or mistaken" provisions stating that the plaintiffs'
units were not subject to rent regulation.

The fourth cause of action alleged that the defendant violated
General Business Law section 349 as a result of its conduct in
advertising the apartments as unregulated and entering into leases
with the plaintiffs that provided that the apartments were not
subject to rent regulation.

The fifth cause of action alleged that the defendant had breached
the implied warranty of habitability by, inter alia, failing to
provide basic services including proper heat, mold amelioration,
elevator service, water penetration abatement, garbage disposal,
plumbing, and ventilation.

The sixth cause of action alleged that the defendant violated
General Obligations Law article 7 by commingling the plaintiffs'
security deposits with its own funds.

The seventh cause of action sought to recover attorney's fees,
costs, and disbursements.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment declaring that their
apartments are subject to rent stabilization and for class action
certification pursuant to CPLR article 9.  In support of their
motion, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to the
protection of the rent stabilization rules because the building
complex was constructed prior to 1974, was issued a residential
certificate of occupancy, and contained more than six units.  The
plaintiffs further contended that the complex did not qualify for
the substantial rehabilitation exemption provided by EPTA section
5(a)(5) because 75% of its building-wide and apartment systems had
not been replaced as required by Rent Stabilization Code section
2520.11.

In addition to opposing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant
cross-moved for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the
plaintiffs' apartments are not subject to rent stabilization and
for summary judgment dismissing the second through fourth causes
of action and so much of the first cause of action as sought
injunctive relief.  The defendants maintained that the requirement
that 75% of building-wide and apartment systems be replaced in
order for there to be a finding of substantial rehabilitation was
inapplicable where, as here, a building complex was converted from
purely commercial space to residential use.  The defendants
further contended that, in any event, the work performed to
convert the complex to residential use satisfied the 75%
requirement.

In an order dated June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the
plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's cross motion.  The
court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing that
the complex was exempt from rent stabilization by demonstrating
that its renovations had converted the complex from commercial to
residential use, and that it had paid for a majority of the
conversion costs.  The court further found that the plaintiffs had
failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the complex
was subject to rent stabilization.  In this regard, the court
reasoned that the 75% requirement of Rent Stabilization Code
section 2520.11 did not apply where a commercial building was
converted to residential use.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed
the Supreme Court's order.  The Appellate Division explained that
its conclusion that the 75% requirement of the New York State
Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) is inapplicable
where a building is converted from commercial to residential use
is supported by a decision of the Appellate Division, First
Department, in 22 CPS Owner LLC v Carter (84 A.D.3d 456).  In that
case, the First Department held, without any mention of the 75%
requirement, that "the conversion of a purely commercial space
into an almost purely residential space, creating 23 residential
units where none existed, is a substantial rehabilitation so as to
exempt the [subject] building from rent stabilization."  Moreover,
since an agency's interpretation of its own regulations is
entitled to deference, the Appellate Division found it significant
to note that its conclusion is supported by two prior
determinations of the Deputy Commissioner of the DHCR.  In those
prior determinations, which the defendant submitted in support of
its cross motion, the DHCR set aside the determinations of rent
administrators and found that two other buildings that had been
converted from commercial to residential use after January 1,
1974, were exempt from rent stabilization, without applying the
75% requirement.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Division's December 28, 2016
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/memJiA from
Leagle.com.

Jack L. Lester, New York, NY, for appellants.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, New York, NY (Michael
Liskow -- liskow@whafh.com -- and Alexander H. Schmidt --
schmidt@whafh.com -- of counsel), for respondent.


HINES REIT: To Seek Dismissal of Gamburg's Derivative Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it
intends to seek dismissal of the derivative claims in the
purported derivative and class action lawsuit pending in Maryland.

On August 11, 2016, a purported derivative and class action
lawsuit, Gamburg v. Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-16-004496, was filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, against the Company, its Advisor and its owners,
certain affiliated entities and current and former members of the
Board, alleging, among other things, that they breached their
fiduciary, contractual and other duties, caused the waste of
corporate assets, and misappropriated corporate assets in
connection with certain payments related to the participation
interest that are expected to be made to certain affiliated
entities in connection with the Plan of Liquidation and in
connection with other payments that have previously been made to
entities affiliated with the Company's Advisor.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 20, 2016. The
amended complaint seeks monetary damages from the entities
affiliated with the Company's Advisor and individual defendants as
well as a variety of equitable and injunctive relief against all
parties, including enjoining any distributions pursuant to the
Plan of Liquidation, enjoining the dissolution of the Company and
seeking attorneys' fees and expenses, and unspecified actual and
punitive damages. The Company intends to seek dismissal of the
derivative claims.

The Company and the other defendants believe the purported direct
claims, as well as the derivative claims, against them are wholly
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., was formed on August 5,
2003 under the General Corporation Law of the state of Maryland
for the purpose of engaging in the business of investing in and
owning interests in real estate.  Beginning with its taxable year
ended December 31, 2004, the Company operated and intends to
continue to operate in a manner to qualify as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes.


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Wins Summary Judgment in "Powell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned JEREMY A. POWELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 2:13-cv-32179 (S.D.W.Va.).

Jeremy A. Powell and Tina M. Powell brought an action against
Huntington, alleging causes of action arising out of a home loan
that the Powells acquired through the bank.  According to the
complaint, Huntington illegally assessed late fees in violation of
the terms of the Powells' mortgage loan contract and in violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA),
and misrepresented the amount of a claim in violation of the
WVCCPA.  It was not in dispute that Huntington charged the Powells
multiple late fees.

Huntington moved for summary judgment, arguing that for the
alleged causes of action to be viable, "Plaintiffs must prove that
Huntington was required, but failed, to apply Plaintiffs' October
2012 payment 'first to current installments, then to delinquent
installments.'"  It was not disputed that Huntington is a national
banking association organized under the National Bank Act (NBA).
Huntington claimed that the Powells' claims fail as a matter of
law because the state law provision at issue, section 46A-3-112(3)
of the WVCCPA, is preempted by the NBA.  Huntington attempted to
prove this by arguing, first, that NBA section 85 preempts the
Powells' challenge to the late fees, and, second, that the NBA and
regulations issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC) preempt the Powells' challenge to the way in which
Huntington posts payments to borrowers' accounts.

Judge Johnston found that section 85 itself does not preempt the
Powells' claim that certain late fees charged by Huntington are in
violation of West Virginia Code section 46A-3-112(3).  The judge
did not find a conflict between the two laws that requires a
finding of preemption.

However, Judge Johnston held that the West Virginia statute as it
applies in the case, cannot survive in light of federal law.  The
judge found that the NBA and OCC regulations give Huntington the
right to make real estate loans, charge interest rates on those
loans, and service those loans in compliance with federal law.
Judge Johnston determined that the OCC has interpreted the NBA as
giving a national bank the power to service mortgages and schedule
payments as it sees fit, and that these powers are not to be
limited by state law.  Thus, the judge concluded that, as a matter
of supremacy, the NBA, read together with the OCC regulations,
preempts West Virginia's exercise of regulatory authority over
Huntington's ability to apply payments and charge late fees as it
sees fit.

A full-text copy of Judge Johnston's December 28, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/PbtMml from
Leagle.com.

Jeremy A. Powell, Tina Powell, Plaintiffs, represented by John W.
Barrett -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER,
Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER, Michael B. Hissam -- mhissam@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY
& GLASSER, Patricia M. Kipnis -- pkipnis@baileyglasser.com --
BAILEY & GLASSER & Scott G. Stapleton --
stapletonlawoffices@gmail.com -- STAPLETON LAW OFFICE.

The Huntington National Bank, Defendant, represented by Andrew
James Soukup -- asoukup@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING, pro hac
vice, Jason E. Manning -- jason.manning@troutmansanders.com --
TROUTMAN SANDERS, John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
-- TROUTMAN SANDERS, Robert A. Long -- rlong@cov.com -- COVINGTON
& BURLING, pro hac vice & Carrie Goodwin Fenwick --
cgf@goodwingoodwin.com -- GOODWIN & GOODWIN.

American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association,
Movants, represented by Andrew James Soukup, COVINGTON & BURLING,
pro hac vice & Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, GOODWIN & GOODWIN.


IDENTIV INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Rok" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Identiv, Inc., awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss the lawsuit
captioned Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On December 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v.
Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934.  On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas
Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a
notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former
officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson. On
June 6, 2016, each of the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5, 2016, the
court granted those motions with leave for the lead plaintiff to
file a second amended complaint.

On September 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the Rok lawsuit filed
a second amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, the Company,
Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss that second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, which motions were scheduled to be heard on
December 16, 2016.

Identiv, Inc., is a global security technology company that
secures data, physical places and things.  The Company sells its
products globally to customers in the government, enterprise and
commercial markets to address vertical market segments including
public services administration, military and defense, law
enforcement, healthcare, education, banking, industrial, retail
and critical infrastructure.


ILLINOIS: Faces Lawsuit Over Violations of Sex Offender Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye at Cook County Record reports that a lawsuit has been
filed accusing the state of Illinois of violating the rights of
convicted sex offenders by maintaining policies that do not allow
a number of them to be released from prison after they have served
their sentences, effectively leaving them informally sentenced to
life in prison.

Seven plaintiffs have filed the lawsuit in Chicago federal court,
saying they have been unjustly imprisoned after state officials
determined they are unable to be released under the state's
Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) policies, which require the
offenders to live in certain state-approved housing. The seven
plaintiffs are currently detained at the Taylorville, Pickneyville
and Lincoln correction centers.

The plaintiffs alleged the MSR policies do not account for a lack
of transitional housing in Illinois that will accept sex offenders
and a lack of housing specifically for sex offenders. Homeless
shelters also will not accept convicted sex offenders, and unless
the parolees have the money to pay for housing or someone outside
of prison can take them in or pay for their housing, they will not
be released.

The plaintiffs have named Ill. Attorney General Lisa Madigan and
the director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, John
Baldwin, as the defendants in the suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

"All of our clients are just looking for a pass to get out of
prison on supervised release, which is what they were sentenced,"
said attorney Adele Nicholas, who is representing the plaintiffs
in the action. "They were not sentenced to be locked up for life."

According to the filing, convicted sex offenders who have been
sentenced to a definitive MSR time can serve that time in prison
and then be released without supervision, but those who were not
sentenced with a specified MSR time may never be released.

"When people receive an indeterminate sentence, meaning it's a
three-to-life term of Mandatory Supervised Release, they can never
max out that time. They could remain in prison for the rest of
their life and never receive credit for having served their MSR
time, and they can never terminate their MSR," Nicholas said.

About 4,000 inmates are serving time for sex-related offenses in
Illinois, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, alleging violations
of rights under the Eighth and 14th amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.

Nicholas said the plaintiffs decided to go the legal route in
their quest for change because they didn't see any political way
to change the system.

"There is not really any political will to change the laws
regulating where people deemed sex offenders are allowed to live.
In fact, the regulations get stricter and stricter as time goes on
and more and more burdensome," she said. "We don't really see a
solution forthcoming from the legislative angle, which is why we
had to file a lawsuit."

She said they were seeking a reform of the current system and
hoped that a federal judge would issue a rule that the system is
dysfunctional and deprives some individuals of their
constitutional rights.

"We have not sought monetary damages on behalf of our clients
because their priority is really getting this system reformed so
that they can seek their release from prison," Nicholas said.


ILLUMINA INC: Feb. 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Lundin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A lead plaintiff is being sought by Lundin Law PC in the lawsuit
that the law firm has filed against Illumina, Inc. Investors who
bought shares of Illumina between July 26, 2016, and October 10,
2016, have to contact the law firm before the February 15, 2017,
deadline on the motion of the lead plaintiff passes.  The suit was
filed in the US District Court for California's Southern District.
Francis deSouza, Illumina's president and chief executive officer
and Marc Stapley, Illumina's executive vice president, chief
administrative officer, and chief financial officer were named as
the defendants.

                      Passive Class

In the class action lawsuit that has been brought against
Illumina, there has been no certification of a class yet. Only
after certification will representation by an attorney is allowed.
Affected investors can decide not to take any action in which case
they will remain passive class members.

The suit alleges that in the course of the class period,
statements that were misleading and materially false were made by
Illumina with regards to the health, prospects, and state of the
business. According to the suit, Illumina made misleading or false
statements and failed to divulge that the company was experiencing
a significant decline in the sales of sequencing instruments, a
decline which negatively impacted the revenues.

                   Inaccurate Projections

The lawsuit further alleges that the company lacked a way to
discern trends that would have influenced the business' financial
result and thereby leading to the conclusion that the revenue
guidance the company offered was exaggerated and unreliable.
Consequently, the only logical conclusion to this was that
statements from Illumina concerning the business, prospects, and
operations of the company were misleading and false. They were
also lacking in a reasonable basis.

In Illumina's second quarter earnings that were released on July
26, 2016, the company projected that preliminary revenues for the
quarter would be more than $620 million in quarter three. Actual
Q3 results that were released on October 10, 2016, showed the
revenue guidance had been off the mark by over $18 million. By the
end of that trading day, the share price of Illumina fell by
around 25%.

In December 29's trading, Illumina, Inc rose by 0.62% to close the
day at $128.72 a share.


INFILAW HOLDING: Law School Hid Accreditation Woes, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hathcock, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
pair of federal class actions filed in North Carolina claim the
Charlotte School of Law made false and misleading statements about
its accreditation with the American Bar Association.

The lawsuits come just over a month after the bar association
placed the law school on probation for what it described as the
school's non-compliance with accreditation standards.

They were filed December 22 in the federal courts for the Western
and Middle Districts of North Carolina just days after the U.S.
Education Department announced the school would no longer qualify
to receive federal student aid money starting Jan. 1, 2017.

In their lawsuits, the six lead plaintiffs -- four in one suit;
two in the other -- claim the failure the law school and its
parent companies, defendants InfiLaw Holding LLC and InfiLaw Inc.,
to tell them of its accreditation issues before they paid tuition
was a breach of contract and unfair trade practice that harmed
them both financially and scholastically.

The lead plaintiffs are also suing the Education Department,
asking that it be ordered to discharge all debts they acquired to
attend the Charlotte School of Law.

The law school was accredited by the American Bar Association in
2011, and was found to be non-complaint with certain of its
standards as early as 2015.  The bar association said it told the
school of these issues at the time, and informed it of other
compliance issues in February, June and November of this year.

The plaintiffs claim that despite being put on notice multiple
times, the law school continued to claim it adhered to the ABA's
accreditation standards in its marketing materials and on its
website.  In addition to the declaratory relief sought in regard
to the Education Department, the plaintiffs also seek compensatory
and punitive damages. Plaintiffs Robert Barchiesi and Lejla
Hadzic, who filed their lawsuit in the Western District of North
Carolina, are represented by H. Forest Horne of Martin & Jones
PLLC in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Gary Shipman of Shipman &
Wright, LLP, in Wilmington, North Carolina.

Plaintiffs Spencer Krebs, Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt and Chester
Roberts, who filed their lawsuit in the Middle District of North
Carolina are represented by Noah Abrams, of Abrams & Abrams PA, in
Raleigh, and Timothy Bailey, of Bailey, Javins & Carter LC in
Charleston, West Virginia.

The cases are:

Robert C. Barchiesi And Lejla  Hadzic, Individually and in a
representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Charlotte School Of Law, LLC,
Infilaw Holding, LLC, and Infilaw,  INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00861 (W.D.N.C., December 22, 2016).

Attorneys for Barchiesi and Hadzic are:

     John Alan Jones, Esq.
     H. Forest Horne, Esq.
     Karl J. Amelchenko, Esq.
     Steven D. Corriveau, Esq.
     MARTIN & JONES, PLLC
     410 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Tel: (919) 821-0005
     E-mail: jaj@m-j.com
             hfh@m-j.com
             kja@m-j.com
             sdc@m-j.com

          - and -

     Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
     Kyle J. Nutt, Esq.
     SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
     575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
     Wilmington, NC 28405
     Tel: (910) 762-1990
     E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com

Spencer Krebs, Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt, and Chester Roberts, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Charlotte School Of Law, LLC, a North Carolina
company, Infilaw Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Jay Conison,
Dean of CSL, Chidi Ogene, President of CSL, Don Lively, former
President of CSL, and the United States Department of Education, a
governmental agency, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01437 (M.D.N.C.,
December 22, 2016).

Krebs et al. are represented by:

     Noah B. Abrams, Esq.
     Abrams & Abrams, P.A.
     1526 Glenwood Ave.
     Raleigh, NC 27608
     Tel: 919-755-9166
     Fax: 919-755-9396
     E-mail: nabrams@abramslawfirm.com

          - and -

     Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
     D. Blake Carter, Jr., Esq.
     Taylor M. Norman, Esq.
     Bailey, Javins & Carter, LC
     213 Hale Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: 304-345-0346
     Fax: 304-345-0375

          - and -

     Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
     J.C. Powell, Esq.
     Powell & Majestro P.L.L.C
     405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
     Charleston, WV   25301
     Tel: 304-346-2889
     Fax: 304-346-2895


INFUSYSTEMS HOLDINGS: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Jan. 9 Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against InfuSystems Holdings, Inc.
and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired InfuSystems securities between May
12, 2015 and November 7, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are advised to join this case by visiting
the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/infu.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) InfuSystems lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; (2) that InfuSystems' financial
statements going back to early 2015 overstated the estimated
accounts receivable collections, which as a result overstated
revenues and pre-tax income; (3) consequently, the financial
statements going back to early 2015 should no longer be relied
upon; and (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/infuor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
InfuSystems you have until January 9, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.


INSEEGO CORP: Faces "Goldsborough" Suit Over Sale to Novatel
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Goldsborough, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Inseego Corp., Sue Swenson,
Philip Falcone, James Ledwith, Robert Pons and David A. Werner,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03068, (S.D. Cal., December 20,
2016), seeks to recover damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Inseego entered into a stock purchase agreement with Novatel
Wireless, Inc. and the Purchasers, which provides for the sale of
all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of
Novatel for $50.0 million in cash. Novatel's mobile broadband
business, branded hotspots and USB modem product lines will be
sold and Inseego will continue to operate its businesses in fleet
and vehicle telematics solutions, stolen vehicle recovery,
telemetry and connectivity solutions businesses.

Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a shareholder of
Inseego, and was previously a shareholder of Novatel before
Inseego replaced NWI as the publicly held corporation on November
9, 2016. He claims that the sale consideration amount is
inadequate in light of the company's recent financial performance.

Inseego is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal
executive offices in San Diego, California. It provides software-
as-a-service and Internet of things solutions. The Company offers
telematics solutions, fleet management, asset tracking,
monitoring, stolen vehicle recovery, and usage-based insurance
platforms.  Sue Swenson, Philip Falcone, James Ledwith, Robert
Pons and David A. Werner served in its Board of Directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (310) 446-6652
      Fax: (212) 601-2610
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


ITERIS INC: Enters Into Settlement to Resolve "Ionni" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iteris, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that it entered into a settlement to
resolve the lawsuit styled Ionni v. Bergera, et al.

On September 15, 2016, a stockholder class action and derivative
action (captioned Ionni v. Bergera, et al., Case No. 16-cv00807-
RGA) was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Court") against certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers (the
"Individual Defendants") and the Company as a nominal defendant
(together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"). The
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  Plaintiff contends that, in 2014 and 2015, the
Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue purportedly
false and misleading proxy statements in connection with the
Company's annual meeting of stockholders in 2014 and 2015
(collectively, the "Proxy Statements"). In those Proxy Statements,
the Company's stockholders were asked to approve amendments (the
"Amendments") to increase the number of shares of the Company's
common stock reserved for issuance under the Iteris, Inc. 2007
Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "Plan"). Among other things, Plaintiff
alleges that the Proxy Statements were materially false and
misleading because they affirmatively represented that no person
could receive more than 500,000 stock options or SARs under the
Plan in any fiscal year (the "Share Limit") and failed to disclose
that the Compensation Committee had the discretion to approve an
annual grant to a Plan participant in excess of that amount.
Plaintiff contends that, in voting to approve the Amendments, the
Company's stockholders were not fully informed and, therefore, the
Amendments were not valid. Plaintiff seeks rescission of any stock
options granted pursuant to the Amendments, including the option
to purchase up to 1,350,000 shares of the Company's common stock
that was granted in September 2015 to Mr. Bergera (the "CEO
Option") in connection with his appointment to serve as President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

The Individual Defendants deny that they breached their fiduciary
duties and the Company believes the Amendments were properly
approved and that all of the options granted pursuant to the
Amendments, including the CEO Option, were valid.  Nonetheless, to
eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainty of the litigation,
on November 8, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth their agreement in principle to
resolve the litigation.  In consideration for a release of claims
and dismissal of this litigation with prejudice, the Company
agreed to submit a proposal at the upcoming 2016 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders seeking stockholder approval for that portion of the
CEO Option that exceeds the Share Limit (i.e., the 850,000 options
above the Share Limit (the "Excess Shares")).  In the event the
stockholders fail to ratify the Excess Shares portion of the CEO
Option, then the Excess Shares shall not be issuable and the
Compensation Committee will explore measures to appropriately
compensate Mr. Bergera in accordance with the terms of his
employment agreement with the Company.  The Board of Directors
believes that such alternate measures to appropriately compensate
Mr. Bergera could result in a compensation charge to the Company
and less favorable accounting and tax treatment for the Company.

The settlement is still subject to final approval of the Court.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties thereto
have agreed that the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with this litigation.  However, the parties have not
had any discussions concerning the amount of such fees and
expenses.  The Company believes that any such fees and expenses
will not be material.  As a result, the Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with these legal proceedings other than
the Company's ongoing attorneys' fees.

Iteris, Inc., is a provider of intelligent information solutions
for both the traffic management and global agribusiness markets.
The Company is focused on the development and application of
advanced technologies and software-based information systems that
reduce traffic congestion, provide measurement, management and
predictive traffic and weather analytics, and improve the safety
of surface transportation systems infrastructure.


J.R. SIMPLOT CO: Fails to Pay Overtime, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class claims in Sacramento, Calif., that the company J.R.
Simplot fails to pay overtime among other violations of California
labor laws.

The case is captioned, JUAN CONTRERAS; individually, and behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. ______, Superior
Court Of The State Of California For The County Of Sacramento,
Jan. 3, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


KEY ENERGY: Defends Two Suits in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against two
lawsuits in Texas alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

In March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the
Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The
first was filed on March 9, 2015 by Juan Aguilar as lead plaintiff
(the "Aguilar Suit"), and the second was filed on March 13, 2015
by Cristobal Lazo (the "Lazo Suit").  The Company agreed to
conditional certification in the Aguilar Suit and notice of the
case issued to 56 putative class members. Only 11 of the eligible
class members filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit by the
opt-in deadline. This is an opt-in rate of just below 20%.

The Aguilar Suit was set for trial on December 12, 2016, but all
deadlines and settings have been stayed with the filing of
bankruptcy.

The Company also agreed to conditional certification in the Lazo
Suit and notice of the case issued to 14 putative class members.
Nine putative class members, including the named plaintiff, have
filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit and the deadline to
join expired on April 4, 2016. There is no trial date set for the
Lazo Suit.

At this time, the Company says it cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss in either case.

Key Energy Services, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
provide a full range of well services to major oil companies,
foreign national oil companies and independent oil and natural gas
production companies.  The Company's services include rig-based
and coiled tubing-based well maintenance and workover services,
well completion and recompletion services, fluid management
services, fishing and rental services, and other ancillary
oilfield services.


KEY ENERGY: Faces New Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc., is facing a new purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2016.

Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class
actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California
involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.
In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including
overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon
employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse
reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide
wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two
of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District
Court for the Central District of California. On December 22,
2015, that court issued an order granting in part and denying in
part a class certification motion. The court initially certified a
class of hourly paid, non-exempt oilfield employees who allege
they did not receive reimbursement for all business expenses and
allege they did not receive all rest breaks required by California
law.

On July 6, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, and certified additional claims alleging that the
wage statements were inaccurate and the overtime was improperly
calculated. The court did not determine whether Key is liable to
any of the class members. The plaintiff in the third case was
required to file the motion for class certification by September
30, 2016, but that motion was not filed. The fourth case is
waiting for a decision regarding whether it will move forward in
California state court or in federal court. The fifth case was
dismissed on July 19, 2016.

On September 29, 2016, a new class action was filed in California
involving the same allegations as the previously filed California
class actions plus a claim for overtime wages under federal law.
The Company was served with the complaint, but no response will be
required during the pendency of the automatic stay.

The Company says it has investigated the claims in the four
remaining lawsuits, and intends to vigorously defend them. Because
these cases are at an early stage, the Company cannot estimate any
possible loss or range of loss.

Key Energy Services, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
provide a full range of well services to major oil companies,
foreign national oil companies and independent oil and natural gas
production companies.  The Company's services include rig-based
and coiled tubing-based well maintenance and workover services,
well completion and recompletion services, fluid management
services, fishing and rental services, and other ancillary
oilfield services.


KEY ENERGY: "Marion" Class Suit Remains Pending in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit filed by Christopher Marion
remains pending in Texas, Key Energy Services, Inc., said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On May 7, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit was filed by
Christopher Marion in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (the "Marion Suit"). The Company
agreed to conditional certification of a putative class and notice
issued to 174 putative class members. Only 27 of the eligible
class members filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit by the
opt-in deadline. This is an opt-in rate of just above 15%. There
is no trial date set for the Marion Suit.

At this time, the Company says it cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss for this case.

Key Energy Services, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
provide a full range of well services to major oil companies,
foreign national oil companies and independent oil and natural gas
production companies.  The Company's services include rig-based
and coiled tubing-based well maintenance and workover services,
well completion and recompletion services, fluid management
services, fishing and rental services, and other ancillary
oilfield services.


LA TAN: Settlement Raises Questions on Information Security
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson of Cook County Record reports that a recent
settlement of a class-action lawsuit over customer fingerprints
raises questions about the security of biometric information.

Earlier in December, the class action lawsuit Klaudia Sekura v.
L.A. Tan in the Circuit Court of Cook County was approved by a
court for $1.5 million settlement. Class members had alleged that
L.A. Tan violated Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
collecting members' fingerprints without complying with BIPA's
privacy notification provisions. Most fitness or tanning
facilities use a membership card for check-in purposes, but L.A.
Tan sold members on the idea of a fingerprint scan being foolproof
and easy, the suit says.

What L.A. Tan allegedly failed to do was disclose to members that
their fingerprints were being used by a third-party vendor out of
state, Sun Lync.

The original complaint also alleged that L.A. Tan failed to comply
with the written data retention policy. Under BIPA, a biometric
identifier cannot be captured unless the company doing it first:
"(1) informs the subject in writing that a biometric identifier is
being collected; (2) informs the subject in writing of the
specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric
identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored,
and used; and (3) receives a written release executed by the
subject,"  wrote Jeffrey Neuburger, partner at the Proskauer firm,
co-head of the Technology, Media & Telecommunications Group, a
member of the Privacy & Cybersecurity Group and editor of the
firm's New Media and Technology Law blog.

The L.A. Tan has focused attention on a new area of law but it
hasn't set precedent.

"When a case like this settles, I don't think it has an effect one
way or another because there is no precedent set when a case
settles," Neuburger told the Cook County Record.

However, Neuburger said that the L.A. Tan case is significant
because it touches on a new area of law, biometric information of
customers.

"This case is a little different because it involves
fingerprints," he said. "The other cases were more focused on
facial images. This is a bit more of a local case. There are some
factual differences but there was no analysis and the factual
differences weren't scrutinized closely."

He added that destruction of confidential personal information is
a big concern for all large companies, and biometric information
is a big new concern in the business world for a number of
reasons.

"It touches on HIPAA because it definitely could affect health
information. It's a pretty significant development," he said.

Neuburger told the Cook County Record some recommendations for
what businesses should take away from this settlement and the L.A.
Tan case, in general.

"I think it's definitely a law that people using biometrics should
be aware of," he said. "There are ways of complying with the law.
In some cases it's practical and in some cases it's not.
Businesses using biometrics should look at the law and see if they
comply with it. The other question is how they use biometrics.
Every business using biometrics in Illinois should be aware --
even if they're not in Illinois but they have customers in
Illinois."

              What Does the Future Hold in Illinois?

"The Illinois legislature at some point in 2015 was looking at
changing the law to make it less onerous, but that didn't happen,
but that may happen at some point in the future," he said.

Many companies in America do business all over the country and it
makes regulating privacy tricky.

"So much of privacy is regulated on a state level," he said. "So,
much of privacy is a state law issue and it's difficult for a
company that's doing business across state boundaries to comply
with the laws everywhere. There have been attempts to try to
create a federal privacy law -- many attempts over the years --
but they've generally been unsuccessful. It's hard to get a
meeting of minds if everybody looks at an issue differently."


LEAP WIRELESS: Approval of Settlement in "Marino" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
affirmed a judgment granting final approval to the settlement of
the case captioned JOSEPH MARINO, et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. JOHN D. HARKEY, JR. et al., Defendants and
Respondents; ANAND L. DANIELL, Objector and Appellant, No. D067365
(Cal. Ct. App.).

After Leap Wireless International, Inc. with AT&T Inc. announced
their merger, representative shareholders sued Leap, the Leap's
Board of Directors, AT&T and others for breach of fiduciary duties
and aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint generally alleged the consideration to be paid to Leap's
shareholders for the merger was the inadequate product of a flawed
sales process.

Approximately two months later, the parties agreed in principle to
settle the litigation and signed a memorandum of understanding
setting forth the key terms of the settlement.  Among these terms,
the settlement required AT&T to forbear its right to enforce the
deal protection provisions related to the Board's ability to
change its position from recommending shareholder approval of the
merger to recommending shareholder disapproval of it.  However,
the settlement did not require AT&T to forbear enforcing its right
to receive a large termination fee ($71,245,000) if the merger was
not consummated because of a change of recommendation.  The
settlement also required Leap to file three supplemental
disclosures with the Securities and Exchanges Commission in
advance of the shareholder vote on the merger.

Three months after completion of the merger, the class plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and for
certification of a mandatory settlement class, which was granted
by the court.

Approximately two months later, class plaintiffs filed a motion
for final approval of the settlement.

Putative class member Anand L. Daniell objected to the settlement
on two grounds: the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and
adequate; and the court was not authorized to certify a mandatory
class.

The court overruled Daniell's objections and approved the
settlement.  The court found the supplemental disclosures were
intrinsically valuable because they enabled an informed
shareholder vote.  The court also found the modification to the
deal protection provisions of the merger and voting agreements
allowed the Board to potentially entertain more valuable options.
Finally, the court found certification of a mandatory class was
appropriate because there was a risk separate actions would be
brought absent a class action and the complaint sought injunctive
relief on grounds generally applicable to the entire class.

On appeal, Daniell contended the court abused its discretion in
approving the settlement and in certifying a non-opt-out, or
mandatory, class.  In a separate motion, he additionally requested
that the class plaintiffs and lead class counsel be sanctioned for
making knowingly false statements in court documents regarding the
benefits of the settlement to the class.

The appellate court held that the presumption of fairness applies
in the case because the record, including the supporting
declarations of lead class counsel and the financial transaction
valuation expert, show that the settlement was reached through
arm's length bargaining; class counsel has the requisite
experience in similar litigation; and the percentage of objectors
was small -- just Daniell.  The record also shows there was
sufficient investigation and discovery to allow counsel and the
court to act intelligently.

The appellate court also found that supplemental disclosures
provided shareholders with additional information relevant to
their assessment of the sufficiency of AT&T's offer before they
were required to vote on whether to approve it.  The appellate
court further found that AT&T's forbearance of its right to
enforce some of the deal protection provisions of the merger
agreement improved Leap's chances of receiving a more favorable
bid.

Daniell alternatively contended the court abused its discretion by
certifying a mandatory class.

Again, the appellate court disagreed, finding that the court also
did not abuse its discretion by finding that the case met the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2).  The appellate court
held that this requirement is satisfied because the class
plaintiffs alleged the Board breached its fiduciary duties and
AT&T aided and abetted the breach by undervaluing Leap, failing to
solicit competing bids, and failing to take steps to preserve the
value of the Chicago spectrum license, and because the class
plaintiffs requested final injunctive or declaratory relief
against the party opposing the class.  The appellate court also
noted that the complaint did not include any claims for monetary
damages.

Lastly, the appellate court declined Daniell's request for
sanctions because neither class plaintiffs nor lead class counsel
filed an appeal, supplied the appellate record, or filed a motion,
and Daniell has not identified any Appellate Rules violated by
class plaintiffs or lead class counsel.  The appellate court also
stated that it cannot conclude lead class counsel made any
knowingly false statements about the benefits of the settlement to
the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 28, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/hEKjQ1 from Leagle.com.

Anand L. Daniell, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Randall J. Baron --
randyb@rgrdlaw.com -- A. Rick Atwood, Jr. -- ricka@rgrdlaw.com --
David T. Wissbroecker -- dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Eun Jin Lee
-- elee@rgrdlaw.com -- and Maxwell R. Huffman --
mhuffman@rgrdlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents Joseph
Marino, John Kim, Wesley Decker and Roxane Andrews.

Sullivan & Cromwell, Robert A. Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- and
Adam S. Paris -- parisa@sullcrom.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents, AT&T, Inc. and Mariner Acquisition Sub, Inc.

Cooley, Koji F. Fukumura -- kfukumura@cooley.com -- Peter M. Adams
-- padams@cooley.com -- and Nicolas J. Eschevestre, for Defendants
and Respondents John D. Harkey, Jr., S. Douglas Hutcheson, Ronald
J. Kramer, Mark A. Leavitt, Robert V. LaPenta, Mark H. Rachesky,
Richard R. Roscitt, Robert E. Switz, Michael B. Targoff and Leap
Wireless International, Inc.


LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Garfield" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Limbach Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Robert Garfield, according to the
Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On May 10, 2016, Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated public holders of 1347 Capital's common
stock, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the
"Complaint") against 1347 Capital, Gordon G. Pratt, Hassan R.
Baqar, Larry G. Swets, Jr., John T. Fitzgerald, Joshua Horowitz,
Leo Christopher Saenger III, and Thomas D. Sargent (the
"Defendants") in the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Illinois. In
his Complaint, Mr. Garfield alleges that (1) the Defendants'
efforts to consummate the Business Combination are "ultra vires"
acts in violation of the Company's amended and restated
certificate of incorporation (the "Charter") because the Charter
required 1347 Capital to liquidate if it had not entered into a
letter of intent or definitive agreement to consummate an initial
business combination by January 21, 2016, and the letter of intent
with Limbach was not entered into until January 29, 2016, (2) the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in
negotiating and approving the merger because, among other things,
they had conflicts of interest resulting from their ownership of
insider shares, and (3) the Defendants filed a proxy statement
that was incomplete and misleading because, among other things,
the proxy statement does not disclose certain conflicts of
interest and the violation of 1347 Capital's Charter. The
Complaint therefore seeks (a) a determination that the action is a
proper class action and that Mr. Garfield is a proper class
representative; (b) a determination that the action is a proper
derivative action; (c) a declaration that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties; (d) a declaration that the merger
agreement is void because it is ultra vires; (e) injunctive relief
enjoining the merger and, if consummated, rescinding the merger;
(f) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (g) an award of
costs and attorney's fees.

The Defendants intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and
believe that the Complaint is without merit because, among other
things, 1347 Capital entered into a letter of intent prior to
January 21, 2016 with a potential target for a business
combination (other than Limbach) which 1347 Capital was unable to
consummate, thereby extending its deadline for completing a
business combination to July 21, 2016, the Defendants did not
breach their fiduciary duties, and the proxy statement is not
incomplete and misleading.

Limbach Holdings, Inc., formerly known as 1347 Capital Corp., is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Through its subsidiaries, the Company operates its business in two
segments, (i) Construction, in which the Company generally manages
large construction or renovation projects that involve primarily
HVAC, plumbing and electrical services, and (ii) Service, in which
the Company provides maintenance or service primarily on HVAC,
plumbing or electrical services.


MARRONE BIO: Wins Final OK of $12-Mil. Deal in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted final approval of Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.'s $12
million settlement in the consolidated securities lawsuit,
according to the Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2016.

On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014,
September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
others were named as defendants in putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. On February 13, 2015, these actions were
consolidated as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-
KJN. On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was
filed on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or
traceable to the Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering;
(ii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded common stock directly in the Company's June 6,
2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on
the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the
"Class Action"). In addition to the Company, the initial
consolidated complaint names certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors and the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm as defendants. The initial
consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC
Rule 10b-5, arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and
misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects,
including its financial statements, product revenues and system of
internal controls. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused
the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The action
includes claims for damages, fees and expenses, including an award
of attorneys' and experts' fees to the putative class. An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on January 11, 2016.

On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the
parties deferring action pending the outcome of a mediation
proceeding, and ordered the parties to provide a status update on
May 4, 2016. On March 15, 2016, plaintiffs moved to amend their
consolidated complaint to, among other things, assert claims on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MBII
securities on the open market between August 1, 2013 and November
10, 2015. On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs, the Company, and certain
director and officer defendants jointly submitted a report to the
Court noting in part that on April 4, 2016, they had participated
in a mediation proceeding and are currently negotiating the terms
of a formal stipulation of settlement.

On May 25, 2016, the parties executed a final stipulation of
settlement.  The stipulation provides for dismissal of the action
as to the Company and the officer and director defendants, and a
payment by the Company's insurers of $12.0 million to an escrow
account, to be distributed upon order of the court.  That same
day, lead plaintiff's counsel filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 27, 2016, the Court
approved Plaintiffs' motion to amend their consolidated complaint.
On June 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
complaint.  At the Court's request, on June 10, 2016, the settling
parties revised the stipulation and papers in support of
preliminary approval to reflect the amended consolidated
complaint, and on June 16, 2016, refiled for preliminary approval
of the settlement. On July 8, 2016, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  The settlement is
subject to notice to the class and further court approval at a
final fairness hearing scheduled on September 22, 2016.

On September 27, 2016, after holding a final fairness hearing, the
Court granted final approval of the settlement.

The Company states that it did not incur a loss in connection with
settlement of this matter in light of applicable insurance
coverage.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., formerly Marrone Organic
Innovations, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware and is located in
Davis, California.  The Company makes bio-based pest management
and plant health products.  The Company targets the major markets
that use conventional chemical pesticides, including certain
agricultural and water markets where its bio-based products are
used as alternatives for, or mixed with, conventional chemical
pesticides.


MYLAN: Lawsuits Over EpiPen Moving Forward
------------------------------------------
Kevin Grasha at USA Today reports that the maker of the EpiPen
that came under fire for boosting the price of the lifesaving
allergy medication sky high may have quieted the controversy by
introducing a generic version, but now faces a raft of lawsuits.

Several proposed class-action cases against drugmaker Mylan
involving EpiPens have been brought in federal courts around the
country, including two in Kansas and two in northern California.

One was filed by a Cincinnati attorney against Mylan after it
raised the price of its EpiPen injectors by 500% since 2009.

Since the lawsuit was filed Sept. 6, the case has been transferred
to federal court, and there are now about 100 people who have
signed on to the proposed class-action case.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit, Carl Lewis, said more people
are seeking to join. He is waiting for the judge to formally
certify it as a class-action.

"We are waiting for the court's certification of the case as a
class," Lewis said in an email.

At the time, only one other lawsuit surrounding EpiPens, filed in
federal court in Michigan, had been publicized.

Mylan itself has faced intense scrutiny, with Chief Executive
Officer Heather Bresch being called to testify in September before
a U.S. House committee. During that testimony, Bresch defended the
pricing of EpiPens.

She also announced that the company would offer a "generic
version" of its own product that would cost $300, about half of
the wholesale price.

A month later, in October, Mylan announced that it had agreed to
terms of a $465 million settlement with the U.S. Department of
Justice and other government agencies. The settlement was intended
to resolve claims that Mylan wrongly classified EpiPen devices as
generic drugs under Medicaid.

The classification allowed Mylan to pay a lower rebate to states
"and reap huge profits at the expense of taxpayers," according to
a letter sent by U.S. Sen Richard Blumenthal to the justice
department.

In that same letter, Blumenthal called on the justice department
to reject the settlement.

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled its own hearing in
November but canceled it when officials said representatives from
the justice department, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services and Mylan all refused to attend.

The lawsuit filed by Lewis describes the plight of lead plaintiff
Linda Bates, a Cincinnati resident who saw her cost for EpiPens go
from about $50 in 2015 to $600 in 2016.

Bates' teenage son has a peanut allergy that has required him to
carry an EpiPen since he was 5 years old. The medication in the
device, epinephrine, reverses an allergic reaction known as
anaphylaxis. The medication lasts about a year, and every year
Bates has to buy a new one. Since 2011, after a federal agency's
recommendation, the devices have been sold in the U.S. with only
two injectors in each pack.

In Canada, an EpiPen sells for just over $100 per injector, and it
is possible to buy a single injector.

"The only country in the world where Mylan requires a customer to
purchase a Two-Pak of the EpiPen is the United States," according
to a lawsuit filed by The Lanier Law Firm and Sharp Law in federal
court in Kansas. The lawsuit says there is no medical reason to
require that people buy two.

"This discrepancy proves that Mylan is motivated by profits and
greed, not medicine or the welfare of its customers," the lawsuit
says.

The lawsuit also alleges Mylan has a monopoly. Competitors, it
says, have been unsuccessful in lobbying the Food and Drug
Administration to approve another auto-injector "that can reliably
deliver the right amount of epinephrine."

Last year, Mylan said its EpiPen was "the number-one dispensed
epinephrine auto-injector." Globally, EpiPens accounted for $1
billion in annual net sales in 2015.

A spokeswoman for Mylan declined to comment about the EpiPen
lawsuits.


NATERA INC: Appeal From Ruling Remanding Cases Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc.'s appeal from a court ruling remanding purported
class action lawsuits remain pending, according to the Company's
November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4,
2016, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against the Company, its
directors and certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and
their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of its July 1, 2015
initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO
contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or
omitted material information that was required to be disclosed,
about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief,
the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions
were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court. The
Company has appealed the remand.

The Company says it intends to defend the matter vigorously, but
it cannot be certain of the outcome.

Natera, Inc. is a rapidly growing diagnostics company with
proprietary molecular and bioinformatics technology that the
Company is deploying to change the management of genetic disease
worldwide.  The Company's novel molecular assays reliably measure
many informative regions across the genome from samples as small
as a single cell.  The Company was formed in 2003 under its former
name, Gene Security Network.


NEW ORIENTAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of New
Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. American Depositary
Shares (NYSE:EDU) from September 27, 2016 through December 1,
2016, both dates inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for New Oriental investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the New Oriental class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1007.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) New Oriental engaged in college application fraud; and
(2) as a result, Defendants' statements about New Oriental's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On December 2, 2016, Reuters reported that eight former and
current New Oriental employees informed Reuters that New Oriental
"engaged in college application fraud, including writing
application essays and teacher recommendations, and falsifying
high school transcripts." On this news, shares of New Oriental
fell $6.99 per share or over 14% from its previous closing price
to close at $42.00 per share on December 2, 2016, damaging
investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 13, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1007.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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


NIKITA LEVY: Payments in Class Action Lawsuit Revealed
------------------------------------------------------
Kate Amara at WBALTV reports that nearly four years after the
allegations emerged, the victims are finally learning the amounts
of their payments from a class action lawsuit in the case of Dr.
Nikita Levy.

The Johns Hopkins gynecologist killed himself in February 2013,
after being accused of secretly photographing and videotaping
women during exams.

With more than 9,000 plaintiffs, it has been a long process, but
it appears that work to divide up the $190 million in settlement
money is complete.

A judge approved the settlement more than two years ago. WBAL-TV
11 News has learned the next phase in the process is underway as
determination letters were sent to the members of the Levy
Settlement Class informing each plaintiff how much she's been
awarded.

There are 9,600 women in this class action case.

"We understand that everyone would like their money as soon as
possible and we are trying to accommodate that," retired Judge
Irma Raker, part of the allocation team, says in a website video.

The website was created to keep the class members up-to-date, the
claims adjudicator -- Mr. Raker -- posted a video explaining the
process and urging patience.

"You have to remember, there are 9,600 women in this class action.
It's probably one of the biggest, or the biggest class action of
its type in the country," Mr. Raker said in the video.

Settlement administrators and the chairman of the plaintiffs'
steering committee for the class action did not return 11 News'
calls and emails to confirm the amounts awarded.

But administrators had previously said the plaintiffs would be
divided into four categories based on severity of injuries.

Documents obtained by 11 News, reportedly sent to plaintiffs,
outline the payment allocations for members of four groups.

The amounts listed in those documents range from about $1,800 to
more than $26,000.

   -- Category one, with 678 members, will receive $1,750

   -- Category two, with 2,121 members, will receive $11,629

   -- Category three, with 4,739 members, will receive $20,001

   -- Category four, with 806 members, will receive $26,048

Regardless of the final amount awarded, administrators have said
all the victims will be paid at the same time.


NOVATION COMPANIES: New Jersey Carpenters Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the putative class
action lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund
remains pending in New York.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation (NMFC) and NovaStar
Mortgage, Inc. (NMI), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company,
and NMFC's directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by
the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011,
with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to
dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to
replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

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

Given the stage of the litigation, the Company says it cannot
provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes
that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the
case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.


P.A.M. TRANSPORT: "Browne" Action Seeks Wages and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
David Browne, Antonio Caldwell and Lucretia Hall, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. P.A.M.
Transport, Inc., Daniel Cushman and John Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-05366, (E.D. Ark., December 19, 2016), seeks
minimum wages due, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorney fees and costs and all other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

PAM is an Arkansas Corporation that maintains a business address
at 297 West Henri de Tonti Blvd., Tontitown, AR 72770 where
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as over-the-road truck drivers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
      Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 KingsHwyN., Suite402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Phone: (856) 685-7420


PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Solak" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied in part and granted, in
part, a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned JOHN
SOLAK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of PAYLOCITY HOLDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.
STEVEN I. SAROWITZ, MARK H. MISHLER, STEVEN R. BEAUCHAMP, RONALD
V. WATERS III, ANDRES D. REINER, JEFFREY T. DIEHL, and PAYLOCITY
HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, C.A. No. 12299-CB (Del. Ch.).

In 2015, about six months after Section 115 was added to the
Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), the board of Paylocity
Holding Corporation adopted two new bylaws.  The first is an
exclusive forum bylaw that, absent the company's consent, requires
internal corporate claims to be filed in a state or federal court
located in Delaware.  The second bylaw purports to shift to a
stockholder who files an internal corporate claim outside of
Delaware without the company's consent the attorneys' fees and
other expenses that the company incurs in connection with such a
claim if the stockholder does not obtain a judgment on the merits
that substantially achieves the full remedy sought (the "Fee-
Shifting Bylaw").  In other words, to trigger the Fee-Shifting
Bylaw, a stockholder must first violate the company's exclusive
forum bylaw.

John Solak, a stockholder of Paylocity, sought a declaration that
the Fee-Shifting Bylaw is invalid under Sections 109(b) and
102(b)(6) of the DGCL, and asserted that the members of
Paylocity's board should be liable for breaching their fiduciary
duties by adopting the Fee-Shifting Bylaw and by failing to
disclose certain information when the company publicly disclosed
its adoption.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as unripe because no
stockholder has filed or stated an intention to file an internal
corporate claim outside of Delaware, and for failure to state a
claim for relief.

The Court of Chancery of Delaware concluded that Solak's claims
are ripe for review because the validity of the Fee-Shifting Bylaw
otherwise may never be subject to judicial review given its
deterrent effect.  The Court further concluded that Solak's
challenge under Section 109(b) states a claim for relief because
that statute plainly prohibits "any" bylaw that purports to shift
a corporation's litigation expenses to a stockholder in connection
with the pursuit of an internal corporate claim without regard to
where such a claim is filed.  The Court dismissed Solak's
remaining two claims because Solak has failed to demonstrate that
the Fee-Shifting Bylaw necessarily Section 102(b)(6), which
concerns when personal liability for the corporation's "debts" may
be imposed on stockholders, and because he has failed to plead
facts sufficient to warrant a reasonable inference that
Paylocity's directors acted in bad faith.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 27, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/kW407H from Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J.
Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- and David M. Sborz --
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- of ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Plaintiff.

John L. Reed -- john.reed@dlapiper.com -- Ethan H. Townsend --
ethan.townsend@dlapiper.com -- and Harrison S. Carpenter --
harrison.carpenter@dlapiper.com -- of DLA PIPER LLP (US),
Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against PayPal Holdings, Inc., eBay,
Inc., and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who: (1) purchased or
otherwise acquired eBay securities on the open market on or after
December 19, 2013 (the "eBay Class Period") and subsequently
received PayPal securities pursuant to eBay's spin-off of PayPal,
effective as of July 17, 2015; and/or (2) purchased or otherwise
acquired PayPal securities on the open market between July 20,
2015 and April 28, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "PayPal Class
Period" and, together with the eBay Class Period, the "Class
Period"). Such investors are advised to join this case by visiting
the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/pypl.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

PayPal, spun off from eBay in July 2015, is an American technology
platform company running a worldwide online payments system that
enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and
merchants. Between 2002 and 2015, PayPal functioned as a
subsidiary of eBay. eBay is an American multinational corporation
and e-commerce company offering consumer-to-consumer and business-
to-consumer payment solutions online.

In 2013, PayPal acquired Braintree, a payment service provider and
holder of Venmo. Defining itself as a "digital wallet," Venmo is a
mobile payment service that allows its users to transfer money to
each other after setting up a personal Vebmo account and linking
it to users' bank account.

On September 30, 2014, eBay publicized that it would spin off
PayPal and its services, including Venmo, into a separate publicly
traded company. The spin off was completed pursuant to which each
holder of eBay common stock received one share of PayPal common
stock for every share of eBay held at July 8, 2015's market close.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the its business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
PayPal's Venmo service was involved in unfair trade practices; (2)
once the above facts were made public, it was likely to impact
PayPal's profitability of its Venmo service and increase
regulatory scrutiny and/or; and (3) consequently, PayPal's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On April 28, 2016, PayPal Holdings Inc. announced that federal
regulators are investigating the its Venmo free peer-to-peer
payment service in relation with possible unfair trade practices.
PayPal received a civil investigative demand on March 28 from the
Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") for Venmo documents. The FTC
review concentrates on whether PayPal, through Venmo, engaged in
unfair or deceptive trade practices. The investigation "may result
in substantial costs, including legal fees, fines, penalties and
remediation expenses and actions and require us to change aspects
of the manner in which we operate Venmo." Following this news,
PayPal stock dropped 0.89 per share or 2.22% and closed at 39.18
on April 29, 2016.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/pyplor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
PayPal you have until February 27, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against PayPal Holdings, Inc, eBay, Inc. ("eBay") (NASDAQ:EBAY),
and certain of the companies' officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 16-cv-07371 is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who: (1) purchased or otherwise
acquired eBay securities on the open market on or after December
19, 2013 and subsequently received PayPal securities pursuant to
eBay's spin-off of PayPal, effective as of July 17, 2015; and/or
(2) purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal securities on the open
market between July 20, 2015 and April 28, 2016, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78 et seq., against
eBay, PayPal, and certain of their top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased PayPal during the Class
Period, you have until February 27, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

PayPal, which was spun off from eBay in July 2015, operates as a
technology platform company that enables digital and mobile
payments on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. It
enables businesses of various sizes to accept payments from
merchant websites, mobile devices, and applications, as well as at
offline retail locations through a range of payment solutions. The
Company's platform allows customers to pay and get paid, transfer
and withdraw funds to their bank accounts, and hold balances in
their PayPal accounts in various currencies.

Between 2002 and 2015, PayPal operated as a subsidiary of eBay.
eBay is a multinational e-commerce company providing consumer-to-
consumer and business-to-consumer payment solutions via the
internet.

In 2013, PayPal acquired the payment service provider Braintree,
owner of the mobile payment service Venmo. Describing itself as a
"digital wallet," Venmo is a mobile payment service that allows
its users to transfer money to one another after providing Venmo
with personal and bank account information necessary to create a
user account.

On September 30, 2014, eBay announced that it would spin off
PayPal and its services, including Venmo, into a separate publicly
traded company.  In July 2015, the companies completed the spin-
off, pursuant to which each holder of eBay common stock as of the
close of business on July 8, 2015 received one share of PayPal
common stock for every one share of eBay common stock held.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (i) PayPal's Venmo service was engaged in unfair trade
practices; (ii) the foregoing facts, when they became known, were
likely to subject the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny
and/or affect the profitability of PayPal's Venmo service; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, PayPal's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 28, 2016, post-market, PayPal disclosed receipt of a
civil investigative demand on March 28, 2016 from the Federal
Trade Commission, seeking documents related to the Company's Venmo
peer-to-peer payment service in connection with potential unfair
trade practices.

On this news, PayPal's share price fell $0.89, or 2.22%, to close
at $39.18 on April 29, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Class Suit vs. Radiancy Remains Pending in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit against a subsidiary of PhotoMedex, Inc.,
remains pending in the District of Columbia, according to the
Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev
Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon
and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who
purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various
violations of state business and consumer protection codes
including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade
practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The
complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or,
alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing
in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli
was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy,
has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for
November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached.

On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety
for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed
with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business
Law Section 349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were
dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's
motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal
jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the
plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to
Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint.
Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend
themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit.

On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs' attorneys refiled their putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against only the Company's subsidiary,
Radiancy, Inc. The claims of the suit are virtually identical to
the claims originally considered, and dismissed without prejudice,
by the same Court. A companion suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, raising the
same claims on behalf of plaintiffs from New York and West
Virginia against Radiancy and its President, Dr. Dolev Rafaeli.
That New York case was removed to the D.C. Court and the cases
were consolidated into one action.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Dr.
Rafaeli and Radiancy; on August 1, 2016, the D.C. Court granted
the dismissal of the case against Dr. Rafaeli, with prejudice, and
decided to allow the action against Radiancy to proceed.

The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously against
this suit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss,
cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated
and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of
any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has
not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.

PhotoMedex, Inc., is a Global Skin Health company providing
integrated disease management and aesthetic solutions to
dermatologists, professional aestheticians and consumers.  The
Company provides proprietary products and services that address
skin diseases and conditions including acne, photo damage and
unwanted hair.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery in California Suit vs. Radiancy Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit filed in
California against a subsidiary of PhotoMedex, Inc., the Company
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint;
the case is now in the discovery phase. On October 30, 2015,
Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that
filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. That
removal was granted, and the Company has now filed to remove this
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the
district with jurisdiction over Jan Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. and
Dolev Rafaeli, President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and
twelve other customers residing in ten different states, including
California, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! hair products and
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied
warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative
class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of
plaintiffs residing in those specific states.

The Company's Motion to Remove the Cantley case had been stayed
pending resolution of the Mouzon litigation; now that the Court in
Mouzon has issued its opinion regarding the Company's Motion to
Dismiss, the California Court has granted the Company's Motion to
Remove the Cantley case to the Federal Court for the District of
Columbia. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend
themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in
this action.

At this time, the Company says the amount of any loss, or range of
loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been
initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the
validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the
Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability
related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future,
as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a
contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

PhotoMedex, Inc., is a Global Skin Health company providing
integrated disease management and aesthetic solutions to
dermatologists, professional aestheticians and consumers.  The
Company provides proprietary products and services that address
skin diseases and conditions including acne, photo damage and
unwanted hair.


PORSCH CARS: Suit v. Settlement Administrators Faces Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers recommended the dismissal of
the case captioned JOSEPH N. FONGE, Plaintiff, v. SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATOR, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-995
(S.D. Ohio).

Joseph N. Fonge, who was proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, brought the action against attorneys Adam J. Levitt, John
Tangren, Gregory Travalio, and Mark Troutman; "Settlement
Administrator, In re Porsch Cars North America, Inc. Plastic
Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation"; and "PCNA's
Designated Counsel William Kiniry, Jr.", asserting a claim under
42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violation of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment premised upon his allegations that the
Settlement Administrator's actions deprived him of his property
interest in a claim benefit without due process of law.  The Court
previously granted Fonge's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Judge Deavers, however, found that Fonge's complaint cannot
support a cause of action under section 1983.  The judge pointed
out that in order to plead a cause of action under section 1983, a
plaintiff must plead two elements: "(1) deprivation of a right
secured by the Constitution of laws of the United States (2)
caused by a person acting under color of state law."

Judge Deavers held that Fonge's complaint fell short with regard
to the second element of a section 1983 claim.  The judge
explained that to sufficiently plead the second element, Fonge's
complaint must contain allegations from which the Court could
conclude that the defendants' actions could be considered the
actions of the State for purposes of section 1983 liability.

Considering that the defendants are individuals employed by
private entities, Judge Deavers explained that the conduct of
private individuals or entities may be considered state action
"if, [and] only if, there is such a 'close nexus between the State
and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior 'may be
fairly treated as that of the State itself.'"   The judge found
that Fonge's complaint contains no allegations from which the
Court could infer that there is a "close nexus" between the State
and the Settlement Administrator's denial of his claim.  The judge
therefore concluded that Fonge has failed to allege facts upon
which the Court could conclude that the defendants acted under the
color of state law.

Judge Deavers thus recommended that the Court dismiss Fonge's
action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A full-text copy of Judge Deavers's December 27, 2016 initial
screen report and recommendation is available at
https://is.gd/6OdOTg from Leagle.com.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Awaits Final OK of "Ramnath" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc., awaits final approval of a
global settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit initiated by
Gauri Ramnath, et al., according to the Company's November 14,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, NAPW, Inc., are
parties to litigation captioned Gauri Ramnath, et al. v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc., et al., No. BC604153 (Los
Angeles Superior Ct.), a putative class action alleging violations
of various California Labor Code (wage & hour) sections. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The complaint was filed in
December 2015 and the Company has answered.

On April 28, 2016, the parties entered into a mutual settlement
agreement and release, on behalf of all putative class
participants, in the amount of $500,000. Such amount is recorded
in accrued expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of September 30, 2016. The parties' agreement and
its amount are subject to Court and state agency approval. The
Company has been notified that the Court will hold a hearing to
consider final approval on November 28, 2016.

The Company anticipates that, if the global settlement is
approved, it will have to fund the settlement in late Fourth
Quarter of 2016 or early First Quarter of 2017.

Professional Diversity Network, Inc. is both the operator of the
Professional Diversity Network and a holding company for NAPW,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the operator of
the National Association of Professional Women, as well as Noble
Voice LLC and Compliant Lead LLC, each of which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and together provide career consultation
services.  The Company is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware, originally formed as IH Acquisition, LLC under the
laws of the state of Illinois on October 3, 2003.


PULASKI COUNTY, IN: Faces "Hizer" Suit Over Courthouse Elevator
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the elevator inside
Indiana's Pulaski County Courthouse does not open automatically
and the heavy wooden door must be opened outward, making it
inaccessible to people in wheelchairs, a class claims in South
Bend, Ind. federal court.

The lead plaintiff is Emily Hizer, represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

The case is captioned, Emily Hizer, on her own behalf and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Pulaski County, Indiana, Defendant. No. 3:16-cv-885 (N.D. Ind.,
December 27, 2016).

Attorney for Plaintiff and the putative class:

     Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
     ACLU of Indiana
     1031 E. Washington St
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Tel: 317/635-4059
     Fax: 317/635-4105
     E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org


QUORUM HEALTH: Defends "Rao" Shareholder Class Suit in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation is defending itself and certain officers
against a purported class action lawsuit entitled Aparna Rao,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Quorum Health Corporation, Thomas D. Miller and Michael J.
Culotta, according to the Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its officers. The
Amended Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of the Company between May 2, 2016
and August 10, 2016 and alleges that the Company and certain of
its officers violated federal securities laws, including Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making alleged false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information
regarding aspects of the Company's business, operations and
compliance policies.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter. However, it is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur a loss in connection with this matter. The Company is unable
to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably
possible loss. Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in
connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be material.

Quorum Health Corporation provides general hospital healthcare and
other outpatient services in its markets across the United States.
As of September 30, 2016, the Company owned or leased 38 hospitals
with 3,578 licensed beds in 16 states.  The Company provides
outpatient healthcare services through its hospitals and
affiliated facilities, including urgent care centers, diagnostic
and imaging centers, physician clinics and surgery centers.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: "Levin" Suit Proceeds to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
The discovery process in the putative class action lawsuit filed
by Daren Levin is expected to commence, according to Resource
Capital Corp.'s November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015.  In November 2015,
the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead plaintiff in the
action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and order directing
the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

In February 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors materially misrepresented certain risks of its
commercial loan portfolio and its processes and controls for
assessing the quality of its portfolio.  Based on these
allegations, the amended complaint asserts claims for violation of
the securities laws and seeks a variety of relief, including
unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees.
In April 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which the court denied on October 5, 2016; and the
discovery process is now expected to commence.

The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Resource Capital Corp. and its subsidiaries originate, purchase
and manage a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate debt
investments.  The Company's investment activities are managed by
Resource Capital Manager, Inc., pursuant to a management
agreement.  The Manager is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of
Resource America, Inc.  On September 8, 2016, Resource America was
acquired by C-III Capital Partners LLC, a commercial real estate
services company engaged in a broad range of activities, including
primary and special loan servicing, loan origination, fund
management, collateralized debt obligation management, principal
investment, investment sales and multifamily property management.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defends 7 Class Suits in Cal. and Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc., is defending itself
against six purported class action lawsuits in California and one
in Illinois, according to the Company's November 14, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Like many others in the transportation services industry, the
Company is a defendant in six purported class-action lawsuits in
California alleging violations of various California labor laws
and one purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois alleging
violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The
plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek to recover unspecified
monetary damages and other items.

In addition, the California Division of Labor Standards and
Enforcement has brought administrative actions against the Company
on behalf of twelve individuals alleging that the Company violated
California labor laws. Given the early stage of all of the
proceedings described in this paragraph, the Company is not able
to assess with certainty the outcome of these proceedings or the
amount or range of potential damages or future payments associated
with these proceedings at this time.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions
and intends to defend these proceedings vigorously. However, any
legal proceeding is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
Company cannot assure that the expenses associated with defending
these actions or their resolution will not have a material adverse
effect on its business, operating results, or financial condition.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc., headquartered in Cudahy,
Wisconsin, has three operating segments: Truckload Logistics,
Less-than-Truckload, and Global Solutions.  Within its TL
business, the Company operates a network of 46 TL service centers
and 20 company dispatch offices and is augmented by over 100
independent brokerage agents.  Within its LTL business, the
Company operates 45 LTL service centers throughout the United
States, complemented by relationships with over 150 delivery
agents.  Within its Global Solutions business, the Company
operates from seven service centers, ten dispatch offices, and
five freight consolidation and inventory management centers
throughout the United States.


SAMARCO MINERACAO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of Samarco Mineracao S.A.'s 10-year notes respectively
due 2022, 2023, and 2024 (collectively, the "Notes") from October
31, 2012 through November 30, 2015, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important January 13, 2017 lead plaintiff
deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Samarco investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Samarco class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-994.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Samarco's Fundao tailings dam had longstanding systemic
and structural defects; (2) Samarco ignored repeated, reliable
warnings regarding the condition of the Fundao tailings dam while
representing to investors that it had mitigated the risk of a
catastrophic accident as much as possible through "a combination
of risk management, careful evaluation, experience and
knowledge,"; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Samarco's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 5, 2015,
Samarco's Fundao tailings dam burst. Subsequent investigations
revealed that Samarco had disregarded safety concerns about the
Fundao dam for years. When the truth about Samarco's operations
was revealed by the collapse of the Fundao dam and investigation
into its causes, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 13, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-994.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Two Class Suits in Cal. & Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is defending itself against two
putative class action lawsuits alleging it made false or
misleading statements, according to the Company's November 14,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in the United States
District Court, Central District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-
07074) and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court,
District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF). These
putative class action lawsuits allege that we and certain of our
executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed
to disclose material facts about our business and the prospects of
approval for our new drug application to the FDA for QAPZOLA in
violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable
relief."

The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biotechnology company, with a
primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and
commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage
clinical and commercial products.  The Company has an in-house
clinical development organization with regulatory and data
management capabilities, and a commercial infrastructure and field
sales force for our marketed products.


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit filed by Peter Marchelos, et
al., remains pending in New York, SpendSmart Networks, Inc., said
in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On January 1, 2014, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds was named in a potential class-action lawsuit titled
Telford v. Intellectual Capital, et al., filed in the United
States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (the "TCPA"). The Company believed the Plaintiff's
allegations had no merit but based upon the economics of continued
litigation, the Company resolved the lawsuit in May 2015 for the
sum of $34,612, and the action is no longer pending.

On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a
potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al. v.
Intellectual Capital Management, et al., filed in the United
States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991. This litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as
the Telford lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the
plaintiffs in this action. The claim of one of the two plaintiffs
was resolved for $1,701.

The Company believes the Plaintiff's allegations have no merit.
There are no other legal claims currently pending or threatened
against the Company that in the opinion of its management would be
likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

SpendSmart Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.  The Company
brings value added products and mobile marketing solutions to
consumers, merchants, and other businesses.


TARSADIA HOTELS: Dismissal of Suit vs. Plaintiff Lawyers Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TARSADIA HOTELS, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. D068887 (Cal. App. Ct.), the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division One affirmed the order of
the trial court which granted the respondents' motion to strike
and dismissed the action.

Tarsadia Hotels, Gregory Casserly, Tushar Patel, B.U. Patel, 5th
Rock, LLC, MKP One, LLC, and Gaslamp Holdings, LLC (collectively,
Tarsadia) filed a malicious prosecution complaint against Michael
Aguirre, Maria Severson, and their law firm Aguirre & Severson
(collectively, A&S), as well as their clients, certain potential
or actual purchasers of condominiums in the Hard Rock Hotel San
Diego, in connection with three putative class action lawsuits
against Tarsadia (5th & K, Salameh, and Royalty).

A&S filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit
against public participation) statute.  The trial court found
Tarsadia conceded 5th & K had not reached a favorable termination
and had not met its burden on probable cause for Salameh and
Royalty.  The court granted the motion and dismissed the action.

Tarsadia argued 5th & K can still be considered, A&S lacked
probable cause to pursue the lawsuits, and the trial court erred
by overruling authentication objections to an attorney declaration
and dismissing the defendants who did not move under anti-SLAPP.

The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly
granted the anti-SLAPP motion on favorable termination and
probable cause grounds.  The appellate court further concluded
that Tarsadia has not established reversible error based on the
evidentiary rulings or dismissal of the non-moving defendants. The
trial court's order was affirmed.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's December 30, 2016 order
is available at https://is.gd/ZoLt2k from Leagle.com.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson; Frederick H. Kranz --
rkranz@coxcastle.com -- and Lynn T. Galuppo --
lgaluppo@coxcastle.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP; Charles R. Grebing --
cgrebing@wingertlaw.com -- and Andrew A. Servais --
aservais@wingertlaw.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against TerraVia Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-07388, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired TerraVia securities between March
13, 2013 and November 4, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased TerraVia securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 17, 2017 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

TerraVia creates and sells food, nutrition, and specialty
ingredients from algae. Its platform uses microalgae to produce
high-value triglyceride oils, proteins, fibers, micronutrients,
and other ingredients, including algal flour.

The Company was formerly known as Solazyme, Inc. and changed its
name to TerraVia Holdings, Inc. in March 2016. TerraVia Holdings,
Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in South San
Francisco, California.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (i) ingestion of TerraVia's algal flour caused
gastrointestinal distress, including nausea and vomiting; (ii) the
Company's algal flour was therefore unlikely to be a competitive
product in the market for nutrition foods; (iii) consequently, the
Company had overstated the commercial viability of its algal
flour; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, TerraVia's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 7, 2016, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"Soylent Thinks It Found What Was Making People Sick: Algae",
stating that an algal flour ingredient provided by TerraVia for
use in Rosa Foods, Inc.'s flagship meal replacement drink,
Soylent, caused consumers to experience gastrointestinal distress,
including nausea and vomiting, and that Rosa Foods would be
removing the ingredient altogether from its product formulations
by early 2017. Despite TerraVia Senior Vice President Mark
Brooks's adamant denial that TerraVia's algal flour was
responsible, Bloomberg further reported that TerraVia had sent a
letter in July to a distributor of Honey Stinger, a Colorado
energy bar company owned by EN-R-G Foods, LLC, "warning that
[TerraVia] had received a 'modest number of reports' showing that
algal protein can cause 'gastrointestinal distress,' according to
a copy seen by Bloomberg" -- similar ailments to those reported by
Soylent consumers.

On this news, TerraVia's share price fell $0.15, or 8.11%, to
close at $1.70 on November 7, 2016, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.



TESLA MOTORS: Faces Son Suit Over Sudden Unintended Acceleration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Automaker Tesla's Model X
SUV has logged 62 times more "sudden unintended acceleration"
events than the national average, according to a federal class
action in Santa Ana, Calif., filed by a man whose vehicle crashed
through the wall of his garage during such an event.

The case is captioned, JI CHANG SON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and K.M.S., a minor by and through
his Guardian ad Litem YUN SOO OH, Plaintiffs, v. TESLA MOTORS,
INC., Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-02282 (C.D. Cal., December 30,
2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff JI CHANG SON, individually and on behalf
of the Putative Class, and Plaintiff K.M.S., a minor by and
through his Guardian ad Litem YUN SOO OH:

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     David C. Wright, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
     3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (909) 557-1250
     Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
             dcw@mccunewright.com

          - and -

     Benedict O. Kwon, Esq.
     Stephen L. Ram, Esq.
     STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C.
     660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600
     Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422
     Telephone: (949) 725-4000
     Facsimile: (949) 725-4100
     E-mail: bkwon@sycr.com
             sram@sycr.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Seeking Lead Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, a law firm specializing in securities litigation, is
sending out an appeal reminding investors in Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd that the deadline for those seeking to become the
lead plaintiff in a class action suit against the company and some
of its officers is fast approaching. The investors have until
January 5, 2017 to be considered for the role of lead plaintiff.

                      American Depository Shares

Filing of the Leone v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited et
al case was done in the state of California at the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on December 27, 2016.
The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased American
Depository Shares of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd between
February 10, 2015 and November 3, 2016.

In the complaint brought against Teva, the defendant is accused of
violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that the defendant failed to reveal in the course of the
class period that it was involved or was involving itself in
conduct that would lead to being put under an anti-trust
investigation by the State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney
General and the U.S. Department of Justice. Additionally, as a
result of the defendant's conduct, prosecutors went on to file
criminal charges against the defendant on suspicion of having
engaged in price collusion. The defendant is also accused of
lacking effective financial reporting internal controls.

                          Court Appointment

While anyone can apply for appointment as the lead plaintiff, the
decision rests with the court. The duties of the lead plaintiff
will include directing the litigation and participating in the
making of crucial decisions such as whether to agree to a
settlement.

Selection of the lead plaintiff is done based on the loss
incurred. Thus the lead plaintiff will be chosen from the
applicants who lost the most while investing in the American
Depository Shares of Teva in the course of the class period.

Another law firm specializing in securities, Faruqi & Faruqi, is
also calling for investors in Teva's ADS shares to seek
appointment as the lead plaintiff.

In December 28's trading, shares of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd fell by 1.13% to close the day at $35.93.


TOWERCOMM LLC: Unpaid Overtime Claimed in "Browder" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Browder, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Towercomm, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00374 (N.D. Fla., December 20, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation owed, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides labor, work crews and tooling to customers in
the telecommunication industry for the purposes of decommissioning
or upgrading cellular towers primarily in the Southeastern United
States. Plaintiff was employed as a tower climber.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Avenue, #400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 822-1111
      Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
      Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             shelley@theFLlawfirm.com


TRUSTCO BANK: Overtime Claimed in "Dejkunchorn" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Dejkunchorn, Jessica Samuel, Tia Collins, Vincent
Johnston, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trustco
Bank, a federal savings bank, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-02171,
(M.D. Fla., December 19, 2016), seeks damages, interest,
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Trustco Bank, is a federal savings bank maintaining approximately
fifty-one branches in the State of Florida. Plaintiffs worked for
Trustco Bank as tellers. Defendants failed to include pre-opening
duties of the bank as excess work and did not compensate
Plaintiffs for overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Charlip, Esq.
      CHARLIP LAW GROUP, LC
      l1900 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 200
      North Miami, FL 33181
      Tel: (305) 354-9313
      Fax: (305) 354-9314
      Email: dcharlip@charliplawgroup.com


TRXADE GROUP: Final Hearing on Family Medicine Accord on Feb. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final approval of Trxade Group, Inc.'s $200,000
settlement to resolve the lawsuit initiated by Family Medicine
Pharmacy, LLC, is scheduled for February 21, 2017, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class-
action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine
Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case
No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern
District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served
Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program.
On June 6, 2016, the Company entered into a binding memorandum of
understanding will the plaintiff related to this litigation to
resolve all claims in exchange for Trxade funding a settlement
fund in the amount of $200,000. A hearing regarding the final
approval is scheduled on February 21, 2017. This settlement was
approved by the courts in September.

Trxade Group, Inc., owns 100% of Trxade, Inc., ShopRX, Ltd., and
Westminster Pharmaceutical LLC.  Trxade, Inc. is a web based
market platform that enables trade among healthcare buyers and
sellers of pharmaceuticals, accessories and services.  Westminster
provides US state licensed pharmacies and other buying groups with
FDA approved pharmaceuticals as well as access to current
benchmark pricing of pharmaceuticals.  ShopRX is the Company's
newly launched UK based subsidiary.  The Company hopes to
establish a similar business to Trxade, Inc. in the United Kingdom
in the future under this entity.


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Herbal Supplements MDL Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The multidistrict litigation over marketing and sales practice of
herbal supplements remains pending in Illinois, Twinlab
Consolidated Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company is not a party to the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice
Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070, U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The matter joined in
a multidistrict litigation a number of purported class actions
arising from allegations raised by a state attorney general
claiming that DNA barcoding testing conducted on behalf the
attorney general indicated that certain herbal supplement products
did not contain the herbal ingredients stated on the label.

The Company says, "We do, however, pursuant to contractual
obligations provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain
of the claims in this litigation. The defendants in this
litigation believe that the claims alleged by the plaintiffs are
meritless and are defending this matter vigorously."

Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in 2013 in
Nevada as Mirror Me, Inc.  In 2014, the Company amended its
articles of incorporation and changed its name to Twinlab
Consolidated Holdings, Inc.  The Company is an integrated
manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of branded
nutritional supplements and other natural products sold to and
through domestic health and natural food stores, mass market
retailers, specialty stores retailers, on-line retailers and
websites.  Internationally, the Company markets and distributes
branded nutritional supplements and other natural products to and
through health and natural product distributors and retailers.


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: "Mathews" Suit Remains Pending in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit commenced by Amy Mathews remains
pending in Arkansas, according to Twinlab Consolidated Holdings,
Inc.'s November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

The purported class action entitled Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-
0294, in the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil
Division, alleges a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act based on the same allegations of the state attorney
general that serve as the basis for the claims in the Herbal
Supplements multidistrict litigation, and seeks certification of a
class of Arkansas residents purportedly impacted by the
allegations.

The Company says it is not a party to this litigation but provides
indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in
this litigation.

Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in 2013 in
Nevada as Mirror Me, Inc.  In 2014, the Company amended its
articles of incorporation and changed its name to Twinlab
Consolidated Holdings, Inc.  The Company is an integrated
manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of branded
nutritional supplements and other natural products sold to and
through domestic health and natural food stores, mass market
retailers, specialty stores retailers, on-line retailers and
websites.  Internationally, the Company markets and distributes
branded nutritional supplements and other natural products to and
through health and natural product distributors and retailers.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Zawada" Suit Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurie J. Michelson granted a motion to dismiss the
complaint, compel arbitration, and strike class allegations in the
case captioned ARTHUR ZAWADA and NASHAT FARHA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RAISER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
11334 (E.D. Mich.).

The plaintiffs, Arthur Zawada and Nashat Farha, utilized a
smartphone application created by Uber Technologies, Inc. to
connect with customers looking for transportation.  They also
received payment from their customers through the app.  In order
to use the technology, the plaintiffs had to "Agree" to a contract
with Raiser, LLC that was presented to them on their smartphones
through the app.  This contract included an arbitration provision,
by which the parties agreed to submit any disputes to arbitration
rather than bringing suit in court.  The contract also included a
conspicuously-presented opt-out provision, by which the plaintiffs
could avoided arbitration.  But they chose not to opt out.

When Zawada and Farha became dissatisfied with Uber's payment
practices, they filed suit in the district court on April 12,
2016.  The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Uber drivers
in the state of Michigan.  They alleged that Uber's business
practices have deprived them of fair compensation.

The defendants sought to compel arbitration of the matter based on
the arbitration provision.

Judge Michelson found that the arbitration provision clearly and
unmistakably delegates the gateway issue of arbitrability to an
arbitrator.  And because the provision is not unconscionable or
illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, Judge Michelson
held that the Court must enforce it by compelling arbitration.

Accordingly, Judge Michelson granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and the case was dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Michelson's December 27, 2016 opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/7dNY4S from Leagle.com.

Artur Zawada, Nashat Farha, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
Linkner -- alinkner@hooperhathaway.com -- Hooper Hathaway PC,
Bruce T. Wallace -- bwallace@hooperhathaway.com -- Hooper,
Hathaway, William J. Stapleton -- wstapleton@hooperhathaway.com --
Hooper, Hathaway & Oscar A. Rodriguez, Hooper Hathaway.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Andrew M. Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Edward H. Chyun -- echyun@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Gary C. Ankers -- gankers@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson & James J. Oh -- joh@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


UNILEVER: Sued Anew Over St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub
------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Paiella at NY Mag reports that when you think of a face
scrub, the St. Ives Apricot version likely comes to mind. It's
both ubiquitous in drugstores across America and highly
controversial, as many say that it actually made their skin much
worse. And now Unilever, St. Ives's parent company, is facing a
lawsuit based on that claim.

In an article titled "WE GOT WALNUTS TO THE FACE . . . .  We
Wanted Gentle Apricots," TMZ -- the official source for celebrity
gossip and, apparently, skin-care-product drama -- reports that
two women have filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit against
Unilever. They say the St. Ives scrub has caused irritation, and
that while the company claims the product is "dermatologist
tested," dermatologists don't actually recommend it.

In fact, dermatologists confirmed to the Cut that the sandy,
granular substances found in scrubs like St. Ives are damaging to
your skin, making it prone to inflammation and, eventually,
wrinkles. Microbead-based scrubs are slightly better, but, then
again, think of the dolphins.


UNILIFE CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unilife Corporation is defending itself against a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to
the Company's November 14, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

On May 26 and 27, 2016, two putative class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that in violation of Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, the Company and six individual defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
that the Company's former CEO and former Chairman of the Board of
Directors had violated the Company's policies and procedures and
had engaged in violations of law and regulations; (2) that the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and
financial reporting; (3) that, as a result, the Company would be
unable to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2016 by the prescribed filing deadline; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements, as well as its statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  The putative class actions were
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 3, 2014 and May 23, 2016.

On August 24, 2016, the Court consolidated the two actions,
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and set a deadline of
October 24, 2016 for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2016
expanding the class to purchasers of the Company's securities
between November 9, 2011 and July 28, 2016, dropping three of the
original individual defendants as named defendants and making
additional allegations related to matters the Company disclosed in
connection with the Investigation.

The Company says it intends to vigorously contest this lawsuit.

Unilife Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in 2009 and is
based in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Company began
operations in Australia in 2002.  The Company is a designer,
manufacturer, and supplier of innovative injectable drug delivery
systems that can enhance and differentiate the injectable products
of the Company's pharmaceutical and biotechnology customers.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Kansas AG Seeks Rejection of Deal to End Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Carpenter of cjonline.com reports that the attorney general of
Kansas joined a coalition of 14 states in opposition to a proposed
class-action settlement of a Florida lawsuit providing little
compensation to consumers while paying attorneys handling the case
nearly $3 million.

Attorney General Derek Schmidt joined a friend-of-the-court brief
filed in U.S. District Court in a lawsuit that alleged
UnitedHealthcare improperly denied people coverage for the Harvoni
hepatitis C treatment.

Under the settlement pending in Florida, Schmidt said, the health
insurance company would be released of claims made in the class
action or related in any way to hepatitis C drugs or the hepatitis
C virus. The vast majority of class-action members would receive
little or no financial compensation in the deal, he said, but
lawyers engaged in the case would make millions of dollars.

"Consumers should come first in the class-action settlement
process," Schmidt said. "In this case, the proposed settlement is
not fair or reasonable and bargains away the claims of the class
members."

The attorney general said consumers would benefit from treatment
changes already implemented by UnitedHealthcare, which is among
insurance companies hired by the state of Kansas to operate the
privatized Medicaid program known as KanCare.

UnitedHealthcare would be required to abandon a requirement
policyholders with hepatitis C abstain from alcohol and drugs for
six months prior to gaining approval for Harvoni medication.

"We are very pleased to have negotiated this important and
valuable concession from United dropping the drug and alcohol
abstinence requirements," attorney Andres Rivero said on behalf of
the class. "Elimination of that requirement should ensure that the
Harvoni cure reaches all hepatitis C sufferers insured by United.

The company also would set aside $500,000 in order to pay $2,400
to class members no longer covered by the insurer and without
coverage for the medication. The law firm bringing the class-
action case would be paid about $3 million, the joint brief said.

States other than Kansas supporting the brief were Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming.


VITA-MIX CORP: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages & Overtime, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of Vita-Mix sales representatives claims in San Diego
court that the blender company failed to pay them hourly wages and
overtime after making them employees in 2013, or commissions
before that.

The case is captioned, DIANE HAWORTH, MICHAEL VARBAEK, SARI
LAMELA, and STACIE HARDER, Plaintiffs, V. VITA-MIX CORPORATION, AN
OHIO CORPORATION, KELLY SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 37-2016-
00045512-CU-0E-CTL, Superior Court Of The State Of California
County Of San Diego.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Diane Ha Worth, Michael Varbaek, Sari
Lamela, and Stacie Harder:

     Harvey C. Berger, Esq.
     Sara J. Waller, Esq.
     POPE, BERGER, WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, LLP
     401 B Street, Suite 2000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619/595-1366
     Fax: 619/236-9677

          - and -

     Suzy C. Moore, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SUZY C. MOORE
     8411 La Mesa Blvd.
     La Mesa, CA 91942
     Tel: 619/928-2900
     Fax: 619/469-9419


WAL-MART: Wagner Jones Gets $54MM Settlement in Drivers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Shelton at The Business Journal reports that Fresno law
firm Wagner, Jones, Kopfman and Artenian recently received its
biggest verdict to date -- $54 million -- in a class-action suit
against Wal-Mart on behalf of 840 truck drivers.

The case is the second of its kind the firm has won in the last 13
months -- a rarity, according to attorney Larry Artenian, who
served as lead counsel during the Wal-Mart case.

While the firm is known for assisting plaintiffs in wrongful
termination, sexual harassment, and other employment-related
cases, including class-action suits, Artenian said it's uncommon
for a class-action suit to be certified, let alone make it to
trial, as parties typically reach a settlement agreement.

From left, attorney Larry Artenian, Karin Schemen (assistant to
Andy Jones), attorney Cathy Houlihan, attorney Nicholas "Butch"
Wagner, attorney Andy Jones, attorney Angela Martinez and attorney
Dan Kopfman. From left, attorney Larry Artenian, Karin Schemen
(assistant to Andy Jones), attorney Cathy Houlihan, attorney
Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, attorney Andy Jones, attorney Angela
Martinez and attorney Dan Kopfman. "Recently, for whatever reason,
big corporate defendants have decided its not a good idea to
settle, so although these cases rarely go to trial, we've had two
go to trial in the last 12 to 13 months," Artenian said. "Prior to
that, I've been to seminars the last five or six years about class
actions and we haven't even found a judge who has had two wage-
and-hour class-action cases go to trial in their career."

The first case, Cortina v North American Title Co., went to trial
in Fresno County Superior Court in 2015. In this case, the firm
represented about 700 escrow officers employed by North American
Title Co. Half the employees were classified as exempt from
overtime when plaintiffs argued they should have been eligible,
while another portion of the group were classified as eligible but
were allegedly not paid for their overtime. Judge Jeff Hamilton
ultimately ruled in favor of the first group, while he found the
second group of plaintiffs too varied to make a ruling for them as
a whole in a class action.

Artenian said the court has yet to release a dollar figure with
its verdict for the first group in the North American Title Co.
case, but one of the firm's expert witnesses has made a ballpark
estimate between $20 and $30 million, making it the largest case
the firm had won up until the Wal-Mart trial, which was held in
November.

The firm has been working on the Wal-Mart case since 2008, so
getting the case to trial was a major feat.

"Wal-Mart is the biggest private employer in the United States,"
Artenian said. "I think they are No. 1 or No. 2 on the Fortune
500, so when you sue them, which you can predict -- but we've
certainly learned -- they have endless resources at their
disposal. So, we've been up against two huge law firms: Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher, and Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson and
Feary. On our side, we had this little group of people here in
Fresno and then one attorney, Stan Saltzman, from an office in
Southern California, Marlin and Saltzman."

By the time the trial started on Halloween at a U.S. District
Court in San Francisco, the presiding judge had commented that it
was the oldest case on her docket.

The case involved approximately 840 truck drivers over an 11-year
period. The drivers argued they had not been paid for various
tasks performed as part of their job duties. While Artenian said
it wasn't a true minimum wage case, it was handled as such, as the
law states if you were paid zero for something, then what you are
entitled to if you win a lawsuit is minimum wage.

"The $54 million figure was calculated at whatever the minimum
wage was at the time people did the work, and it was a complicated
calculation for experts since they had to go into company records
and look at what period of time each individual worked, and the
minimum wage rate changed several times over the 11 years,"
Artenian said.

Though the $54 million verdict is monumental in and of itself,
statutory penalties could be added to the amount, bringing the
judgment up to as much as $140 million.

In all, Artenian said his firm filed paperwork Dec. 14 asking the
court to assess three statutory penalties and damages.

The first, and most likely to be added to the sum, according to
Artenian, is a penalty for intentional failure to pay minimum
wage. The jury, Artenian said, found that Wal-Mart did
intentionally fail to pay the truck drivers. With the finding, the
court can impose a $100 penalty for the first pay period of
intentional failure to pay and $250 for each subsequent violation
(or pay period). The jury calculated over 103,000 pay periods that
Wal-Mart was in violation, which would work out to an additional
$25 million in penalties against Wal-Mart.

The second item the firm has asked for on behalf of the drivers is
liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are difficult to assess,
Artenian said, because you can't quantify the experiences and
things in life an individual had to miss out on due to not
receiving the proper pay back when it was owed.

Assessing the impact for more than 800 people is even more
difficult, but the liquidated damages provision under the
California statute states the court can assess them at an amount
equal to the amount of the minimum wage damages. In essence, the
court could double the amount of the judgment, giving another $54
million to the plaintiffs.

The firm also asked the court to consider adding damages dealing
with unfair business practices and competition for the first year,
2004-2005, of the case. The value of those damages is just under
$6 million.

Over the next few weeks, Artenian said Wal-Mart's lawyers will
have time to file briefs and opposition to these damages, and
sometime toward the end of January 2017, there will be a hearing
where the court will decide whether damages can be added and how
much. After that phase, another statute states Wal-Mart has to pay
the prevailing attorneys' fees.

"Unlike a lot of class-action suits where a company did false
advertising and everyone affected gets $5, there are drivers in
this group who stand to get $100,000 or more," Artenian said. "If
it were to come out to $140 million, with 800 and some odd people,
that averages to $175,000 to $180,000 a person potentially. Of
course, I don't want to be inaccurate because all we have right
now is $54 million, but that is the best-case scenario . . . I
would be shocked if the court does not add something."

After the final amount is tallied, Artenian expects a lengthy
appeals process and there is a possibility of settlement prior to
coming before an appellate court.

With an end in sight, however, Artenian said the case is certainly
something he hasn't seen before: "We haven't investigated it or
anything, but it's the biggest verdict by a Fresno law firm we've
ever heard of."

"We have been creeping up toward this as our class actions have
gotten bigger and bigger," Artenian said. "The one we just
finished last year in Fresno County, if that does come out to $20-
$30 million, that would be the biggest one we've ever had. We've
settled a bunch between $10-$16 million and some of those cases
have been potentially as big as the one last year, but we hadn't
seen anything in the range of this Wal-Mart case at all.

"What does it mean for us? I don't know. We have a bunch of class-
action cases we're handling now and more on behalf of truck
drivers, but these cases take a really long time. Five years is
not unusual and this Wal-Mart case has been eight. You don't get
paid anything while you're working and you spent a lot of your own
money on expert witnesses and more. You have to have a certain
stomach for it . . . you have to believe there is a lot of merit
to the case. That is one reason I believe we've been successful."

While Artenian served as lead counsel in the Wal-Mart case, the
firm's attorneys Dan Kopfman, Butch Wagner, Angela Martinez, Andy
Jones and Russ Myrick, along with Stan Saltzman of Marlin and
Saltzman, also worked diligently on the case. In the North
American Title Company case, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman and Artenian
served as the lead firm, but had assistance from two other local
firms: Wanger, Jones and Helsley, and Cornwell and Sample.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Awaits Decision on Bid to Toss "Shanklin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc., is still awaits ruling on its
motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit commenced by
Alex Shanklin, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske
Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf
of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as
defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model
management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the
judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the
New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention,
generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model
management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve
matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed
a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed
that case. Plaintiffs have retained substitute counsel, who has
filed a Second and now Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of
the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants,
conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that
the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not
independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and
that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several
respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to
pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required
thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not
providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and
deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint
seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to
most of the plaintiffs' claims, and oral argument on the motion
was heard by the Court in June 2016. The judge reserved decision
and it is not known when the decision will be issued.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion model
management.  These business operations are headquartered in New
York City.  The Company's predecessor was founded in 1967 by
Wilhelmina Cooper, a renowned fashion model, and became one of the
oldest, best known and largest fashion model management companies
in the world.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Proceedings in "Pressley" Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in the lawsuit initiated by Shawn Pressley remains
stayed, according to Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s November 14,
2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On June 6, 2016, another purported class action lawsuit was
brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn
Pressley and others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State
Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing
the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting
identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin
Litigation. On June 14, 2016, the Court stayed all proceedings in
the Pressley Litigation until a decision is issued on the motion
to dismiss in the Shanklin Litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley
Litigation are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the
action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion model
management.  These business operations are headquartered in New
York City.  The Company's predecessor was founded in 1967 by
Wilhelmina Cooper, a renowned fashion model, and became one of the
oldest, best known and largest fashion model management companies
in the world.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Settlement Talks in "Betancourt" Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions in the lawsuit filed by Angel Betancourt is
still ongoing, Wilhelmina International, Inc., said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On August 20, 2015, a lawsuit was brought against the Company and
the Company's former Chief Accounting Officer by a former
employee, Angel Betancourt. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
was discriminated against during his time of employment and upon
his termination. The lawsuit further alleges that the plaintiff
was not compensated due to misclassification by the Company under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The proceeding is in the
preliminary stages and, by agreement with the plaintiff, further
action in the lawsuit has been abated pending ongoing settlement
discussions. The Company expects that the lawsuit will be resolved
within the limits of the Company's insurance coverage.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion model
management.  These business operations are headquartered in New
York City.  The Company's predecessor was founded in 1967 by
Wilhelmina Cooper, a renowned fashion model, and became one of the
oldest, best known and largest fashion model management companies
in the world.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation continues to defend itself against
a consolidated litigation captioned In re Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, according to the Company's November 14,
2016, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the annual period ended December 31, 2015.

In October 2014, Zebra acquired the Enterprise business
("Enterprise"), excluding its iDEN, or Integrated Digital Enhanced
Network Business from Motorola Solutions, Inc. ("MSI"), for $3.45
billion in cash (the "Acquisition"). Enterprise is an industry
leader in mobile computing and advanced data capture technologies
and services, which complement Zebra's printing and RFID products.
Its products include rugged and enterprise-grade mobile computers,
barcode scanners and RFID readers, WLAN solutions, and
accessories, software, and services that are associated with these
products. Enterprise service revenues include sales arising from
maintenance, repair, product support, system installation and
integration services, and other services.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions. A putative
federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc.,
et al., ("Waring Action") was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring.  After the filing of the Waring Action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the "New Class Actions").

The Waring Action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for
all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron
Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved
its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class.  On
August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and named
additional former officers and directors of Symbol as defendants.
The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants misrepresented the
effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and forecasting
processes, and that, as a result, all of the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and the individual defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The lead plaintiff alleges that it was
damaged by the decline in the price of Symbol's stock following
certain purported corrective disclosures and seeks unspecified
damages.

By orders entered on June 25 and August 3, 2015, the court granted
lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a
class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol
common stock between April 29, 2003 and August 1, 2005.  The
parties have substantially completed fact and expert discovery.
However, by order entered on January 8, 2016, the court granted
Symbol's request for certain additional fact and expert discovery;
pursuant to a proposed scheduling order filed on January 21, 2016,
the parties agreed to complete that discovery by approximately
June 17, 2016. There are also certain discovery motions pending
that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held
in abeyance all other deadlines, including for the filing of
dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial.

The Company says it establishes an accrued liability for loss
contingencies related to legal matters when the loss is both
probable and estimable. In addition, for some matters for which a
loss is probable or reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount
of loss or range of loss is not possible, and we may be unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could
potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies.
Currently, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount
of reasonably possible losses for this matter.

Zebra Technologies Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells a
broad range of Automatic Identification and Data Capture ("AIDC")
products, including: mobile computers, barcode scanners, RFID
readers, wireless LAN products, specialty printers for barcode
labeling and personal identification, real-time location systems,
related accessories and supplies, such as self-adhesive labels and
other consumables, and utilities and application software.


* Consumer Action Creates Database For Class Action Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Pittsburgh reports that companies accused of inconveniencing,
misleading or injuring their customers often face a class-action
lawsuits. But many times, most consumers don't even know they're
part of those lawsuits or owed money when those suits are settled.

It's easy to see why Carol Mason doesn't like her outdoor deck.

"We have these brown boards that we bought and they're turning
black," she said.

She soon could be seeing "green." Under the terms of a class
action, she may be entitled to $400.

"I think consumers would be very surprised at just how many class
action lawsuits they were a part of," Joe Ridout with Consumer
Action said.

Ridout said hundreds of suits are filed each year to essentially
punish companies for misleading customers. If you've ever
purchased a product that's been a part of one of those suits, odds
are, you have been entitled to class action cash.

But it's estimated that less than ten percent of eligible
consumers actually claim their share of these settlements. So
Consumer Action has created database to help consumers collect.

Ever buy Johnson & Johnson baby products? Or Seventh Generation
cleaning products? You may be eligible for for $10 to $30, due to
alleged misleading claims.

Ridout said often, proof of purchase isn't necessary.

"Even for some of these very large amounts, it's not necessarily a
high burden of proof," he said.

Current payouts range from 50 cents for some who bought a
Starbucks breakfast sandwich last summer to thousands of dollars
for those compromised by the 2014 Home Depot data breach.

"Consumers are never going to get rich off a class action," legal
analyst Melissa Caen said.

Caen points out it's the lawyers who take home the biggest cut.

"But the bigger benefit to consumers is that the threat of the
lawsuit keeps the companies honest," Ridout said.

Leftover funds are distributed to consumer organizations, like
Ridout's. Though he'd prefer you get your cut.

"We want to get the word out before it's too late," he said.

Every settlement does have a deadline and filing a claim for
something you never purchased is considered fraud. Companies often
settle these suits, without admitting wrongdoing.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Orders PPT Presentation Included in Record
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to CLAUDIA DiSCALA, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants, WHITTAKER
CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 2266N, 190413/13 (N.Y.
App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, First Department, unanimously modified the order of the
Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered March
8, 2016, which denied the motion of defendant Whittaker Clark &
Daniels, Inc. (Whittaker) to include in the record the PowerPoint
presentations used by plaintiff's counsel during opening and
closing statements to direct that the PowerPoint presentation used
during closing statements be included in the record.

Whittaker's objections to the content of the the plaintiff's
counsel's PowerPoint presentation used during its opening
arguments are waived, since Whittaker's counsel reviewed and
consented to it in advance of opening statements.  However,
Whittaker timely objected to the content of the PowerPoint
presentation used by the plaintiff's counsel in its summation, and
timely moved to include it in the record.  The question of whether
the jury may have been prejudiced by slides shown during closing
arguments, including slides counsel cycled through quickly, is an
issue likely to be raised on a post-verdict CPLR 4404(a) motion,
and on appeal (People v Santiago, 22 N.Y.3d 740, 750-751 [2014]).
Accordingly, the PowerPoint slides used by plaintiff's counsel
during summation should have been included in the record, the
Court held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 22, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/PFaJio from Leagle.com.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York (E. Leo Milonas of
counsel), for appellant.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Matthew A. Toporowski of counsel),
for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITW Loses Bid to Dismiss Butcher's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury case styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION, DARIO BATTISTONI, Plaintiff, v. AERCO
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190103/2015,
Motion Seq. 003 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant ITW Food Equipment Group
LLC moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint and any cross-claims against it.

The Defendant contends that the motion should be granted because
its products could not have been a substantial contributing factor
to the causation of the plaintiff's mesothelioma, citing Matter of
New York City Asbestos Litig. (48 Misc.3d 460 [Sup. Ct., New York
County 2015]), as well as Parker v. Mobil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434
(2006).  The Defendant notes that the plaintiff worked as a
butcher at a delicatessen in Queens, New York, from 1979 to 1980,
and later worked as a butcher and banquet chef in kitchens at the
Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, California from 1980 to 1999.
Central to the plaintiff's claim is his allegation that at those
jobs, he worked with Hobart and Traulsen commercial kitchen
equipment that exposed him to asbestos and caused his
mesothelioma. The Defendant criticizes what it describes as the
plaintiff's assertion that each asbestos-containing product that
he encountered during his lifetime, including ITW FEG products,
substantially contributed to the development of his asbestos-
related disease.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
ordered that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied
in its entirety.  Judge Moulton held that the Defendant's motion
is denied because the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that its
products (which it concedes that it sold during the relevant
times) "could not have contributed to the causation of the
plaintiff's injury."  While the Defendant asserts that the
plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his exposures to its
products were substantial, it is not plaintiff's burden on summary
judgment to do so.

A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision & Order dated
December 21, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/gQNmJN from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Charlevoix"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, CHARLEVOIX et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CBS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-726-SLR-
SRF (D. Del.), Stephen and Marilyn Charlevoix filed an asbestos
action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants
on July 10, 2015, asserting claims regarding Mr. Charlevoix's
alleged harmful exposure to asbestos.

Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to the federal court court
on August 21, 2015.  CBS, Goodyear, and FMC filed motions for
summary judgment on September 30, 2016.  Ingersoll filed its
motion on October 4, 2016.  The Plaintiffs did not respond to
these motions.  On November 8, 2016, counsel for Ingersoll and FMC
sent a letter to the court seeking dismissal for the Plaintiffs'
failure to oppose the summary judgment motions.  Counsel for CBS
and Goodyear filed similar letters on November 10, 2016, and
November 14, 2016.

Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon of the United States District Court
for the District of D. Delaware recommends granting the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Stephen Charlevoix, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC.

Stephen Charlevoix, Plaintiff, represented by Laura M. Cabutto,
pro hac vice.

Marilyn Charlevoix, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC & Laura M. Cabutto, (See above for address),
pro hac vice.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Tome, Reilly
Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, White & Williams.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Amaryah
K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A. Cincilla,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning, Manion Gaynor
& Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP &
William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Ingersoll Rand, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall,
Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz
Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ana Marina McCann,
(See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See above
for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

FMC Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Brian Tome, Reilly
Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Marilyn Charlevoix, Cross Defendant, represented by David W.
deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC.

Stephen Charlevoix, Cross Defendant, represented by David W.
deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Claimant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Ford Motor Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, White & Williams.

Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, White & Williams.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, (See above for address), Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., (See
above for address), Jennifer D. Smith, (See above for address) &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Tome,
Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S.
Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, White & Williams.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ryan William Browning,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

Ingersoll Rand, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

VIAD Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Inmate's Suits Dismissed as Frivolous
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory Sleet of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware will: (1) dismiss the complaints styled
NICHOLAS KENNETH TRAMMELL, Plaintiff, v. JAMES T. VAUGHN
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant, Civ. No. 16-738-GMS (D. Del.), and
NICHOLAS KENNETH TRAMMELL, Plaintiff, v. SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, Defendant, Civ. No. 16-736-GMS (D. Del.), as legally
frivolous and based upon the defendant's immunity pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (iii) and Section 1915A(b)(1),
(2); (2) dismiss all pending motions as moot; and (3) decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367.  In light of the nature of Trammell's claims, the court
finds that amendment would be futile.

A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's December 2, 2016, Memorandum
with respect to the suit against James T. Vaugh is available at
https://is.gd/h38FTR from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's December 2, 2016, Memorandum
with respect to the suit against Sussex Correctional is available
at https://is.gd/ZEXBuj from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Partly Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SEAN TOLIVER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER
SEMPLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-1899 (SRU)(D. Conn.),
Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut dismissed the claim for radon exposure
at Garner Correctional Institutions and the request for
declaratory relief.  The Clerk is directed to terminate defendant
Falcone, the warden at Garner, as a defendant in this case.  The
case will proceed on the claim for unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at Osborn against the remaining defendants in their
individual capacities.  A full-text copy of Judge Underhill's
December 6, 2016 Initial Review Order is available at
https://is.gd/ttWBSz from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Execs Face High Court Action Over Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ainsworth, writing for The Irish News, reported that legal
action has been launched against the Health and Safety Executive
of Northern Ireland (HSENI) over an allegation that hazardous
asbestos was allowed to remain on a building site for seven years.

A writ has been served by Limavady-based contractor Joe
Strawbridge that claims the HSENI "actively participated in the
commission of a civil wrong" by allowing a quantity of asbestos
material to remain at a site in Carrickfergus from 2009 to 2016.

The High Court action taken by Mr Strawbridge makes the allegation
that his company was not permitted to complete work at the Belfast
Road site, which meant asbestos remained there "at the mercy of
the elements".

Asbestos fibres can cause a fatal lung conditions including cancer
when inhaled, and methods used by those removing it from old
buildings include keeping it wet in order for the tiny fibres not
to spread in the nearby environment.

Mr Strawbridge claims the HSENI "neglected their duties to protect
the public" after leaving the site.

He claims that by failing to treat the asbestos that remained
there, this increased the likelihood of asbestos fibres blowing
outwards across Carrickfergus and even across Belfast Lough
towards North Down, posing a "health risk" to those living there

Speaking ahead of the action, a spokesperson for the HSENI said
they would "robustly defend any accusations" made against them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Alleges Man Died From Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that two
individuals claim that a loved one died due to asbestos exposure
in the workplace.

Gloria Lapeyrolerie and Sherizan Lapeyrolerie filed a suit against
CSR Limited, formerly known as Colonial Sugar, in the Orleans
Parish Civil District Court on Nov. 21.

According to the claim, the plaintiffs' decedent, Frank
Lapeyrolerie, died on Nov. 25, 2015, because of malignant
mesothelioma due to the negligence of the defendant, who exposed
him to a dangerous environment that contained asbestos-containing
products.

The defendant is accused of negligence through failing to warn and
other counts.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount in damages. They
are represented by Mickey P. Landry, Philip Hoffman, Amanda J.
Ballay, Matthew C. Clark and Frank J. Swarr of Landry & Swarr in
New Orleans.

The case has been assigned to Division I Judge Piper D. Griffin.

The Orleans Parish Civil District Court Case number 16-11392


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Documentary Shines Light on Litigation Abuses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that
a documentary scrutinizes the cottage industry of asbestos
litigation.

The National Press Club will hold an in-progress showing of
"Unsettled: Inside the Strange World of Asbestos Lawsuits" on Dec.
14 in Washington D.C.

The film by Paul Johnson follows a California car dealership sued
for asbestos exposure. Because the dealership had never used
asbestos, the defense attorney assumed the matter would be
resolved quickly, but he was wrong.

"He soon found out that facts don't always matter in the strange
and secretive world of American asbestos lawsuits," according to a
promotion for the film. "In these lawsuits, it's not always clear
who is really sick, how they became sick, or if it even matters."

Following the tale to Washington D.C. to uncover the sums of money
contributed to politicians by trial attorneys who bring asbestos
claims, the documentary seeks to uncover a system that pays big
dividends to lawyers at the expense of victims with mesothelioma
and business owners accused of being at fault.

Madison County is familiar with the story. It sees the most
asbestos-related personal injury case filings of any jurisdiction
in the United States, Mark Behrens, a defense litigator who
appears in the documentary, told the Record. Not because they're
residents but because the courts have proved to be welcoming.

"Few plaintiffs who file in Madison County are residents; most do
not even live in Illinois," Behrens said. "Madison County attracts
mesothelioma cases because plaintiffs can get to trial faster than
in many other jurisdictions. The court has set up a system that
fosters settlements, leading to what is essentially an asbestos
case mill. Illinois also has permissive venue laws, which allows
out-of-state plaintiffs to file there."

In a comprehensive study of Illinois county court dockets, the
Illinois Civil Justice League found that certain jurisdictions in
the state are magnets for litigation, including Madison and St.
Clair counties.

Another recent study produced by the ICJL shows the significance
of trial lawyer contributions to Illinois judges and politicians
over the past 15 years -- all totaled, $35.35 million.

Madison and St. Clair county courts, which along with Cook County
host the state's highest concentrations of civil litigation,
factor prominently in the ICJL study, "Justice for Sale III."

Pastuovic said the film "UnSettled" reinforces what those who are
familiar with the asbestos docket already know.

"It's disturbing but not surprising, based on what I know," he
said of the film.

He said it's all about money. While there's a lot of secrecy
surrounding asbestos cases, he estimated each case yields an
estimated $2 million, bringing in $1.74 billion annually. About
$600 million of that goes to plaintiffs' attorneys in the form of
contingency fees.

Trial lawyers have shown they're willing to spend money to keep
favorable laws and policies in place.

The ICJL's Justice for Sale III report tallied contributions by
the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association's legislative political
action committee, as well as contributions by the top 25
plaintiffs' firms, including their lawyers and family members.
Between January 2001 and March 2016, ITLA contributed $6 million.
Altogether, the law firms invested $29 million in political
campaigns during the same time period.

No race was too small: Plaintiffs attorneys contributed to
legislators, constitutional officers, judges, state's attorneys,
county board chairmen, circuit clerks, county party chairmen,
mayors, union leaders and politically allied special interests.

Nationally, lawyers, including lobbyists, contributed more than
$209 million to campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics, with the American Association for Justice, formerly
called the American Trial Lawyers Association, leading the way.
According to the center, at least two-thirds of spending by this
group is directed to Democrats.

"This is causing many problems in Illinois," Pastuovic said,
adding that the litigious environment scares away businesses and
much-needed jobs.

To Behrens, the idea that a plaintiff would "give up a 'home
field' advantage" to pursue a case in Illinois raises a red flag.
He'd like to see the courts do more to reduce the number of cases,
which could interfere with other matters brought by local
residents and force potential jurors to take time off work for
cases that should be in other states.

First, he said the courts should grant defendants' motions dismiss
cases that have no "logical" connection to the county.

Roughly 10 percent of asbestos cases come from Illinois residents
and less than 1 percent of cases are filed on behalf of Madison
County residents.

Late last year, Madison County Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs
denied a motion to dismiss by Ford Motor Company over
jurisdiction. Ford, headquartered in Detroit, faces a lawsuit
brought by attorneys at Maune Raichle, who filed suit in Madison
County Circuit Court, on behalf of plaintiffs living in Florida.
The St. Louis law firm specializes in mesothelioma cases.

Ford has appealed the case, which was heard at the Fifth District
Appellate Court on a bench that includes two newly elected
Republican justices who were opposed by asbestos personal injury
attorneys, including the Maune Raichle firm.

Additionally, Behrens suggested the courts should:

   -- Discourage "shotgun pleadings," where plaintiffs' lawyers
sue first, and then dismiss many defendants who never belonged in
the case in the first place.

   -- The courts should require plaintiffs to file all asbestos
bankruptcy trust claims before trial to prevent "double dipping"
by plaintiffs. Double dipping occurs when a plaintiff recovers
twice for the same harm by bringing a personal injury lawsuit
followed by numerous asbestos bankruptcy trust claims. He said
this is a problem in Madison County.

He believes the film, "UnSettled," brings attention to abuses.

"The film provides a vehicle to stimulate further discussion
regarding the need for improvements to the civil justice system in
the area of asbestos litigation," he said.

Pastuovic agreed, saying, "What's important for us is the need to
continue to beat the drum for civil justice reform."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers Urged To See Dr. After Asbestos Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Jerde, writing for NJ.com, reported that the teachers union
is advising its members to go see a doctor after a former
environmental officer filed a lawsuit claiming Paterson Schools
mishandled asbestos, NorthJersey.com reported.

John McEntee Jr., president of the Paterson Education Association,
reportedly advised teachers who worked in schools cited in the
lawsuit to go to the doctor. He said some had before voiced their
concerns over air quality.

McEntee said some of the teachers in the buildings were sick and
he has advised them to see a pulmonologist, according to the
report.

A professor said her work was affected after an associate
professor at Ramapo College called her a "fat b----."

Brenda Zemo, an Environmental Occupational Health and Safety
Officer, claimed in her lawsuit that she was subjected to a
hostile work environment after she expressed her concerns and that
she was fired after she filed the complaint.

Zemo claimed the school failed to properly remove and store
asbestos materials. She is seeking to get compensatory pay or her
job back and an order against retaliation from school employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Alleges Exposure From Father's Clothing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a
Donaldsonville woman is seeking damages over claims that she was
exposed to asbestos second-hand and has been injured.

Betty Ann Breaux Difore filed a suit against Huntington Ingalls
Inc., et al. in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on Nov. 1.

According to the claim, the plaintiff's father was employed by
Avondale Industries Inc.  and in the scope of his work was exposed
to substances in products manufactured by the defendants that
caused his asbestos-related mesothelioma. The suit further states
that the plaintiff was also exposed to asbestos through coming in
contact with her father's clothes and suffers from asbestos-
related mesothelioma.

The defendants are accused of negligence and other counts.

The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount in damages. She is
represented by J. Burton LeBlanc IV, David R. Cannella,
Christopher C. Colley and Jeremiah S. Boling of Baron & Budd in
Baton Rouge.

The case has been assigned to Division J Judge Paula A. Brown.

The Orleans Parish Civil District Court Case number 2016-10800


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Can Be Liable for 2nd-Hand Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
In early December, the California Supreme Court ruled that
companies can be held liable if asbestos exposure at a jobsite
results in a worker's family becoming sick. The court's decision
was covered in an article by the Los Angeles Times that reported
the ruling stemmed from two previous lawsuits brought against
companies after family members died from mesothelioma allegedly
due to asbestos exposure from family members' clothing.

Asbestos is the name given to six naturally occurring fibrous
minerals that were used for decades in thousands of commercial
products and building materials. The Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry (ATSDR) reports that significant exposure to any
type of asbestos will increase the risk of lung cancer,
mesothelioma and asbestosis. The agency also reports that
asbestos-related diseases have been diagnosed in not just workers
that dealt with asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, but
also with family members.

According to the National Cancer Institute, this risk is thought
to result from exposure to asbestos fibers brought into the home
on the shoes, clothing, skin and hair of workers. These family
member exposures are referred to as secondhand, secondary or take-
home asbestos exposure.

"If the proper asbestos-related safety precautions are not
followed, or if workers do not know they are being exposed to
asbestos, families can be at risk of diseases that may not show up
for years," said Michael Chapman, Laboratory Manager of LA
Testing's Huntington Beach facility. "At LA Testing, we offer
testing services and all of the sampling supplies necessary to
identify asbestos-containing materials and environmental exposure
hazards. These services protect workers and their families while
helping to keep companies in regulatory compliance."

To learn more about asbestos testing or other environmental,
indoor air quality, occupational, health and safety issues, please
visit www.LATesting.com, email  info@LATesting.com  or call (800)
755-1794.

                   About LA Testing

LA Testing is California's leading laboratory for air quality
testing of asbestos, mold, lead, VOCs, formaldehyde, soot, char,
ash and smoke damage, particulates and other chemicals. In
addition, LA Testing offers a full range of air sampling and
investigative equipment to professionals and the general public.
LA Testing maintains an extensive list of accreditations
including: AIHA LAP LLC., AIHA ELLAP, AIHA EMLAP and AIHA IHLAP,
NVLAP, CDC ELITE, State of California, State of Hawaii Department
of Health and other states. LA Testing, along with the EMSL
Analytical, Inc. network, has multiple laboratories throughout
California including Huntington Beach, San Diego, San Leandro and
South Pasadena.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Haven Man Convicted of False Statement
------------------------------------------------------------
New Haven Register reported that a West Haven man was convicted
Wednesday of one count of making a false statement to the federal
government in connection with issuing certification to an
individual who had not completed training in lead abatement and
asbestos testing.

Guido A. Cortes-Rodriguez, 64, was a training instructor for North
Star Center For Human Development, a group that is able to provide
certification in lead and asbestos testing, according to the U.S.
attorney's office. In pleading guilty to the charge Wednesday,
Cortes-Rodriguez admitted to signing off on a 40-hour asbestos
abatement supervisor initial certification, a 32-hour lead
abatement worker initial certification, and an OSHA 10-hour
construction safety training course to an individual who did not
attend any training courses at North Star.

The individual was an undercover agent who had provided the
defendant with more than $1,200 cash for the certifications,
prosecutors said.

"Government regulations related to asbestos and lead abatement
exist for a very important reason: To ensure that this work is
done properly and safely without endangering the public health,"
U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly said in a release Thursday.
"Individuals who game the system, especially those who illegally
profit from it, will be prosecuted."

According to prosecutors, the undercover agent discovered that
classes had not been conducted by Cortes-Rodriguez for weeks. The
agent contacted the defendant and he was given a list of things to
provide, including $1,260 in cash, in order to get his
certifications, the U.S. attorney's release said.

"Asbestos and lead removal training providers are entrusted with
keeping safe the supervisors, workers and the public that hire
them," said Tyler C. Amon, special agent in charge of EPA's
Criminal Investigation Division in New England. "Trainers who
cheat and provide false certificates will continue to be a focus
for EPA enforcement since they pose too great a risk to the public
health."

Cortes-Rodriguez is scheduled to be sentenced in April. He faces
up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Fears Rise As Renovation Booms
------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that exposure to asbestos causes
mesothelioma and other serious illnesses. That is a given. The
material was once widely used - it was an integral component of
ceiling and floor tiles, insulation for heating pipes and boilers,
and for residential and commercial buildings. It was incorporated
into the walls as part of joint compound, and into the
infrastructure when it was mixed with cement to add greater
strength. Though the material's use has been largely curtailed
since the mid-1970s when the Environmental Protection Agency
revealed its dangers, the recent boom in renovation work being
done on older buildings has raised alarm bells for health
advocates and workers' rights groups, as many contractors are
disregarding guidelines for handling the toxic material and
endangering workers' safety.

A recent story published on the website of Massachusetts radio
station WBUR highlights the problem, telling the story of a worker
who reported concerns about asbestos and who was told to keep
working, and not to worry. When he took a sample of tile for
analysis at a state-accredited lab it revealed that there were
high levels of asbestos present. Yet he had not been provided with
any training for asbestos removal, or even any protective clothing
or breathing mask.  The story is repeating itself around the
country. Construction, renovation and demolition workers are being
put at risk of asbestos exposure by companies that face little
more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a fine, even though
they are exposing their workers and others in the vicinity of the
asbestos removal project to the risk of mesothelioma, asbestosis,
and other asbestos-related diseases.

Because mesothelioma takes between ten and forty years to begin to
show symptoms, it is hard to tell exactly where a workers'
exposure to the toxic material may have occurred. Particularly
concerning is a study done in the United Kingdom that indicated
that those who remove asbestos that is in place have double the
chance of dying of an asbestos-related disease then do those who
were exposed to it in a manufacturing environment. What this means
is that despite the diminished use of asbestos in the United
States, there is a likelihood that asbestos-related diseases will
continue to claim more lives in the future.

If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or
another asbestos-related disease and you suspect that it was
caused by negligence, then the attorneys at Danziger & De Llano
can help. Contact Danziger & De Llano Legal Advocates today at 1-
800-692-8608, or visit our website,
http://mesothelioma.net/mesothelioma-attorneys/,to learn more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Tenants Worry About Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Thomas, writing for CBC News, reported that people who live
in a Victoria apartment tower that is undergoing renovations are
worried about health risks after WorksafeBC stopped work over
concerns that asbestos has been disturbed.

A notice posted on the front entrance to 415 Michigan Street, in
Victoria's James Bay neighbourhood, says work inside the 14-storey
building has been halted after a Dec. 14 inspection found a
ceiling texture coat in the building's hallways had been
disturbed.

The notice at Regent Towers also says the ceiling coat that was
disturbed is listed in the building's asbestos inventory as
containing asbestos.

While construction work has stopped inside the building, the
situation has left tenants wondering if their health has been put
at risk.

"I try not to think about it," said Bill Appledorf, whose
apartment door is just metres away from one of the areas listed in
the stop work order.

"Asbestos is a very nasty thing, I'm just hoping that I have not
been exposed."

Asbestos fibres are dangerous if they become airborne. The known
carcinogen is contained in tens of thousands of homes and
buildings across the country that were built before 1990.

Lack of information

Appledorf says no one advised tenants to avoid areas of the
building when the renovation work was stopped by WorkSafeBC, even
though property management staff and even the mail carriers were
no longer allowed into the building.

A spokesperson for WorkSafeBC said stop-work orders are posted in
public areas to ensure workers and the public are aware of
potentially hazardous situations.

But the agency said it is up to the employer to provide
notification of any public safety issues that may result.

Nathalie Vazan, another resident at Regent Towers, said tenants
are left wondering who is responsible for the health of people who
are living in construction zones.

"If it is not safe, deadly or dangerous for workers, how can it be
safe for us residents?" she said.

WorkSafeBC stop work order
A Stop Work notice has been posted at the main entrance to the
apartment building at 415 Michigan Street. (Megan Thomas/CBC)

Air testing underway

A spokesperson for the company that owns the building, Starlight
Investments, and the property manager, Devon Properties, says air
testing started as soon as the stop work order was issued by
WorkSafeBC.

"The most important thing is to get the air quality tested and to
assure tenants that the building is safe," said Danny Roth.

Initial tests have come back negative for hazardous airborne
asbestos fibres, Roth said, but more tests have been ordered to
check every floor of the building.

Roth says no steps were taken to keep tenants out of the areas
where asbestos may have been disturbed.

"I don't believe there was any suggestion that there was any
immediate risk to anyone," he said.

Risk low, Island Health says

Island Health sent staff this week to assess the risk to people
living in the building.

The health authority says it was not initially notified about the
potential asbestos exposure, but investigated after receiving a
complaint.

"At this point we don't feel like there is a high risk to the
residents of the building and we will continue to follow up with
WorkSafeBC to ensure the residents of the building are not put at
increased risk," said Dr. Murray Fyfe, a medical health officer
with Island Health.

"The residents wouldn't be spending as much time in a dusty
environment as a worker would when a renovation is going on, but
that doesn't mean that appropriate precautions should not take
place."

The potential asbestos exposure at 415 Michigan Street also
worries people in a neighbouring tower that is undergoing similar
renovations.

Sean Clazie says a number of tenants have requested more
information about where asbestos is contained in their building,
and whether the dangerous substance is being handled properly
during the current renovations, but they have not received a
response.

"The disclosure is quite minimal as far as the risk to us
tenants," he said. "Just looking for assurances, simple
assurances."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Won't Rehear $8MM Deal Overturn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Goff, writing for Florida Record, reported that on Nov. 9,
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal refused to reconsider
its Sept. 14 decision to overturn a 2013 $8 million award to
Richard DeLisle, who sued multiple companies, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Crane Co., for his mesothelioma
diagnosis.

"(Delisle claimed) he developed mesothelioma from smoking Kent
cigarettes with asbestos-containing filters in the 1950s," a Nov.
17 article from CVN said. "DeLisle, who worked as a pipe fitter in
the 1960s, also partially attributed his asbestos exposure to
gaskets manufactured by Crane Co."

After the 2013 decision to award DeLisle one of the largest suits
against a tobacco company and cigarette manufacturer with regards
to an asbestos claim from smoking, R.J. Reynolds and Crane both
submitted appeals, claiming that expert evidence provided in the
2013 trial was not valid.

"There was no data presented at the hearing showing that
chrysotile asbestos in low levels is associated with
mesothelioma," the Nov. 9 opinion said. "Indeed, the other experts
testifying for DeLisle all rejected such an association. The trial
court's gatekeeping role is not a passive role. The court should
affirmatively prevent imprecise, untested scientific opinion from
being admitted."

The overturning that occurred in September offered background
information on why the evidence provided in the 2013 jury decision
was found to be invalid.

"We hold that the court abused its discretion in admitting expert
testimony and thus reverse for a new trial for R.J. Reynolds and
for entry of a directed verdict for Crane," the September court
decision said. "We also address, for the purposes of new trial,
the jury instruction issue and the damage award."

The Fourth District Court of Appeal explained that a new trial was
ordered for R.J. Reynolds because the opinions of two of DeLisle's
experts should not have been admitted by the trial court as they
did not offer sufficient causation. Also, the testimony of a
pulmonologist for the plaintiff should have also been excluded for
similar reasons.

In regards to Crane, the court explained that although DeLisle's
only expert offered research, he offered it from several different
types of asbestos studies. The case was based on one specific type
of asbestos, which was chrysotile asbestos.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal also explained that it agreed
with R.J. Reynolds' complaint that the trial court was at fault
for not appropriately instructing the jury. The opinion also
argued that the initial $8 million decision came without thorough
consideration of whether DeLisle actually used Kent cigarettes.

Crane prevailed with a directed verdict in its favor by the
appeals court, but R.J. Reynolds could face a retrial.  "Crane and
RJR were assigned 16 and 22 percent responsibility for Delisle's
illness, respectively, at the time of the trial," the CVN article
said. "Remaining responsibility was allocated amongst
Hollingsworth & Vos, Owens Corning Fiberglass and Brightwater
Paper Co., who were no longer involved in the case when it went to
a jury."

The Nov. 9 court decision stressed that when R.J. Reynolds returns
to trial, the court should focus on both the reward amount
requested (and whether the amount is fair and reasonable) and
whether Delisle actually smoked Kent cigarettes during the time
frame he initially stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Names 186 Defendants in Asbestos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that a man
is suing 186 companies he claims are responsible for the death of
a Steubenville man.

Rocco Mancano Jr. was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 11,
2015, and died of the disease on Nob. 18, 2015, according to a
complaint filed in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Lawrence T. Piergallini claims that Mancano was exposed to
asbestos through his father, who worked for Follansbee Steel, from
1946 until 1966.

From 1970 until 2002, Mancano was exposed to asbestos through his
own employer, Weirton Steel Corporation, where he worked as a
pipefitter, according to the suit.

Piergallini claims the defendants are being sued as product
manufacturers, suppliers, installers and distributors upon
theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of
expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort,
conspiracy, misrepresentations by specific defendants and post-
sale duty to warn.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as
the Mancano's employer for deliberate intent/intentional tort,
according to the suit.

Piergallini is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved. He is being represented by David P. Chervenick, Bruce E.
Mattock and Lief J. Ocheltree of Goldberg Persky & White; and
Scott S. Segal of the Segal Law Firm.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 16-C-1737

Goldberg Persky & White PC
1030 Fifth Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

The Segal Law Firm
810 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, WV 25301


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Firm Faces Felony Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & Demolition reported that Washington Attorney
General Bob Ferguson has filed five felony charges in Chelan
County (Washington) Superior Court against A1 Asbestos LLC and its
owner, Timothy Powell, for allegedly providing false asbestos
waste shipment records to an Okanogan County landfill, including
forging signatures on one of the documents.

According to the AG's office, Powell and A1 Asbestos are also
accused of offering false statements to the State of Washington's
Department of Labor & Industries about the start dates of asbestos
abatement work in an attempt to avoid worksite safety inspections.

In a release from the AG's office, Ferguson says, "Strict rules
governing the disposal of asbestos waste exist to protect workers
and the public, and they must be followed."

According to State of Washington law, before a landfill will
accept general construction waste, contractors must provide proof
from an asbestos abatement contractor, such as A1 Asbestos, that
the waste does not contain asbestos. The abatement contractors
remove asbestos and dispose of it, properly and safely contained,
at landfills and provide an asbestos waste shipment record to
contractors as proof that their construction waste has been
cleared of asbestos.

Powell is accused of falsifying Okanogan County waste shipment
records on several occasions to inaccurately show that he properly
disposed of asbestos waste at a different landfill in Grant
County.

According to the AG's office, the false documents allegedly
allowed Powell and his business to avoid some of the costs of
asbestos disposal by combining asbestos waste from multiple job
sites and only paying one disposal fee.

Powell and A1 Asbestos have been charged with:

   -- Four counts each of offering a false instrument for filing
or record; and

   -- One count each of forgery.

Both charges are class C felonies with a maximum penalty of five
years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine plus costs, fees and
restitution.

The Chelan County Superior Court has scheduled a preliminary
hearing on the charges for Jan. 9.

The Attorney General's Office is prosecuting the case at the
request of the Chelan County Prosecutor's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Asbestos Deaths Set To Hit Record Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline O'Doherty, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that
asbestos-related deaths are expected to hit a record high in the
next few years as the legacy of decades of ignorance about the
cancer- causing building material hits home.

And safety experts have warned the danger will remain high for
another 10 to 15 years, with asbestos finds rising 80% in recent
years as the recovering economy sees an increase in building
renovations and refurbishments.

Notifications to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) -- which
are mandatory when asbestos finds exceed a certain limit in a
building about to undergo demolition or renovation works --
increased from 164 in 2010 to 290 up to the middle of December
this year.

That is the highest since the mid-2000s when a combination of the
construction boom and the state-sponsored scheme to remove
asbestos from schools and other public buildings saw figures rise.

Darren Arkins, a senior inspector with the HSA, said that the vast
majority of notifications were coming from the private sector and
were expected to rise over the coming years.

He said that there was a constant need to educate new additions to
the construction workforce about the dangers.

"The difficulty that you find now is that a lot of construction
workers would have been used to new build during the boom period.

"They've now come away from that in the last number of years into
refurbishment and a lot of these guys would never have seen or
come across asbestos.

"That's an area of concern for us because we've seen scenarios
where stuff is uncovered during a job and the younger construction
workers wouldn't necessarily pick up on it," said Mr Arkins.

Recent high-profile discoveries of asbestos have included:

   * Leinster House, where major refurbishment works are under
way;

   * A warehouse in Arklow, Co Wicklow, where a roof fire lead to
local people being warned to stay indoors;

   * A quarry, also in Co Wicklow, where blasting exposed
asbestos-containing rock later dispatched to building sites for
use in paths and driveways.

However, Mr Arkins said small projects also presented serious
risks.

"The residential side is a key concern for us. We have to up the
level of awareness with homeowners," he said.

While new construction regulations require homeowners to appoint a
project supervisor for health and safety when carrying out works,
which would include checking for asbestos, Mr Arkins said: "The
residential sector is very hard to monitor."

Deaths from asbestosis, a fast-developing disease caused by
exposure to high doses of asbestos, are exceptionally rare in
Ireland but cases of pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung
linings caused almost exclusively by inhaling tiny amounts of
asbestos fibres, often decades earlier, are on the rise.

The National Cancer Registry recorded 20 cases in 2005 but that
rose to 34 in 2014 and the registry expects it to leap to 68 cases
per year by 2020 as workers exposed to asbestos up to the 1980s
when its use ceased, finally begin showing symptoms.

There is no cure for mesothelioma which usually kills within a few
years of diagnosis.

According to the HSA, up to 50% of commercial buildings inspected
have no up-to-date safety survey carried out on them, with owners
often waiting until a major renovation job is due before checking
for asbestos, with the result that it can be exposed without
warning during minor works.

Aside from lack of appreciation about the dangers of asbestos, the
cost of removal and disposal is believed to be a major deterrent
to building owners being more pro- active.

Ireland has no waste disposal facility for asbestos and the
material must be shipped abroad, mainly to Germany, at a cost of
EUR400 to EUR500 per tonne.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Hartford Inks Asbestos Reinsurance Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford has entered into a definitive agreement effective
Dec. 31, 2016 with National Indemnity Company (NICO), a subsidiary
of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., for a $1.5 billion aggregate excess of
loss reinsurance agreement covering certain of The Hartford's
asbestos and environmental liability exposures. The reinsurance
premium for this agreement is $650 million.

The agreement covers potential adverse development on The
Hartford's existing asbestos and environmental reserves as of Dec.
31, 2016, excluding those held by the company's U.K. Property and
Casualty (P&C) run-off subsidiaries, which the company is under
contract to sell and currently expects to close in first quarter
2017. The agreement provides up to $1.5 billion of reinsurance for
adverse net loss reserve development above estimated net loss
reserves of $1.7 billion as of Dec. 31, 2016. The Hartford will
continue to handle claims, subject to certain conditions, and will
retain the risk of recoveries under third-party reinsurance
contracts for these exposures.

"Our asbestos and environmental exposures have generated adverse
loss reserve development over time, creating uncertainty for
investors and others about the ultimate cost of these policy
liabilities, most of which were underwritten prior to 1985," said
Chief Financial Officer Beth Bombara. "The agreement announced
today is consistent with our stated objective of evaluating
options that had favorable economics, while taking into
consideration our expertise in handling these complex claims. NICO
is a very strong counterparty and this agreement reduces
uncertainty about potential adverse development while allowing us
to continue to handle both claims and reinsurance recoveries,
which we believe will enable us to achieve the best possible
resolution for these long-tail exposures."

The agreement will be accounted for in The Hartford's fourth
quarter 2016 financial statements as a retroactive reinsurance
agreement, resulting in a charge of approximately $423 million,
after-tax, against fourth quarter 2016 net income, or a pro forma
impact of $1.10 per share to Sept. 30, 2016 book value per diluted
share of $48.30. The reinsurance premium is expected to have a
slightly negative impact on 2017 P&C net investment income and
does not affect the company's expectation to execute its
previously announced 2017 capital management plan including equity
repurchases of $1.3 billion.

                        About The Hartford

The Hartford is a leader in property and casualty insurance, group
benefits and mutual funds. With more than 200 years of expertise,
The Hartford is widely recognized for its service excellence,
sustainability practices, trust and integrity. More information on
the company and its financial performance is available at
https://www.thehartford.com. Follow us on Twitter at
www.twitter.com/TheHartford_PR.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., (NYSE: HIG) operates
through its subsidiaries under the brand name, The Hartford, and
is headquartered in Hartford, Conn. For additional details, please
read The Hartford's legal notice.

Contacts
The Hartford
Media Contact:
Michelle Loxton, 860-547-7413
michelle.loxton@thehartford.com
or
Investor Contact:
Sabra Purtill, 860-547-8691
sabra.purtill@thehartford.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Will Ban Asbestos By 2018
-------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that after the
latest push from unions and federal labor advocates, the Canadian
government is moving to ban asbestos by 2018.

Science Minister Kirsty Duncan announced the long-awaited news in
late December.

The ban will apply to the manufacture of any products containing
asbestos, as well as imports made with the deadly mineral. It
could be extended to products already manufactured.

New Democrat Party Critic for Labour Sheri Benson introduced Bill
C-321 in November to help speed the process. Despite a steep
decline in global demand and Canada's last asbestos mines closing
in 2012, the Canadian government continued to drag its feet on
meeting international anti-asbestos standards.

"I was proud to introduce Bill C-321 in the House of Commons to
build consensus amongst my colleagues that we need a ban in Canada
and to let the Liberal government know that the time for action is
now," Benson said.

Canada will join more than 50 other countries around the world
that have banned asbestos.

Canada's Asbestos Usage & Need for a Ban

Asbestos is the leading cause of workplace related death in
Canada.

Deaths from mesothelioma, a rare respiratory cancer caused almost
exclusively from asbestos exposure, increased 60 percent between
2000 and 2012. Experts estimate 150,000 Canadians are exposed to
asbestos at work, particularly in construction and trade
industries.

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), Canada's largest union, is
celebrating the upcoming ban after launching a national campaign
in 2015.

"We can all breathe easier," CLC president Hassan Yussuff said in
a statement. "This is good public health policy that will, without
question, save lives for generations to come."

Canada led world production of asbestos before the country's two
largest mines (both in Quebec) halted operations in 2012. The
closure marked the suspension of the country's asbestos production
for the first time in 130 years.

While Canada no longer exports asbestos, it continues to import
asbestos-containing products.

According to CLC, Canadian imports of asbestos grew from $4.7
million in 2011 to $8.2 million in 2015. More than $6 million of
the 2015 imports came from friction materials such as brake pads
and brake linings.

The toxic mineral is banned in 56 other countries, including many
of Canada's major trade partners such the United Kingdom, Germany,
France and Japan.

"The top five countries that Canada currently imports asbestos
friction materials from are the U.S., South Korea, China, Chile
and Peru," CLC spokesperson Chantal St-Denis told Asbestos.com.

Asbestos-Free Alternatives Are Available

Currently, Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials Information
System (WHMIS 2015) excludes certain consumer products, such as
brake pads, meaning many Canadian workers may be at risk for
asbestos exposure and not even know it.

But St-Denis is quick to point out that asbestos-free
alternatives, including brake pads produced in Guelph, Ontario,
are available. Other common asbestos-containing products, such as
ceiling tiles, can also be produced locally without asbestos
contamination.

"Canadian industries have been innovators in producing asbestos-
free products, St-Denis said. "Canadian industries that produce
asbestos-free materials are competing against harmful counterparts
being imported daily."

Citing the World Trade Organization's ruling validating the rights
of member states to prohibit the import and use of carcinogens or
goods that contain carcinogenic substances, St.-Denis said that
imposing a ban on asbestos imports would pose no trade risks to
Canada.

A Ban Today Saves Lives Tomorrow

Asbestos-related diseases typically take decades to develop.
Mesothelioma has a latency period of 20 to 50 years.

Early detection of mesothelioma is a major key to longer survival.

While asbestos or asbestos-containing products are no longer mined
or produced in Canada, experts predict asbestos health issues will
rise in coming years.

Comprehensive bans not only help prevent future cases, but they
also provide more sensible oversight on workplace practices and
make more resources available for people with asbestos-related
diseases, as well as those at risk.

Yussuff emphasized the need for governments to work with First
Nations, the various Aboriginal Canadian groups.

"We must ensure we move to protect everyone living in Canada from
exposure, including those living in First Nations housing filled
with asbestos-ridden vermiculite insulation," he said.

The Future of Asbestos in the US

With Canada embracing an asbestos ban, the U.S. remains one of the
few major industrialized nations that have not banned the
carcinogenic mineral.

Through a series of legislation, asbestos is highly regulated in
the U.S., but it continues to be used in gaskets, friction
products, roofing materials, fireproofing materials and hundreds
of consumer products as long as it accounts for less than 1
percent of the product.

And because of heavy use through the mid-1980s, asbestos is still
prevalent in homes, public schools and office buildings today.

The U.S. took some important steps last year in the fight to ban
asbestos.

President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. The legislation
overhauls how the government regulates toxic chemicals, amending
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1979.

Former U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced the Alan
Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act on Sept. 28, 2016. The proposed
bill goes beyond the reformed TSCA to prohibit the manufacture,
processing, use, distribution in commerce and disposal of asbestos
within 18 months.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made an important move
to close out the year when it added asbestos to the top 10 list of
substances the agency must review in accordance to the reformed
TSCA.

"EPA made the right decision to include asbestos in the first 10
chemicals it will review under the new TSCA law," Boxer said in a
statement. "Asbestos is one of the most harmful substances known
to humankind, and asbestos has been the poster child for TSCA
reform. Hopefully asbestos will be banned and thousands of lives
will be saved."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plum Creek Claim vs. WR Grace Discharged
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware granted the motion of Reorganized W.R. Grace
& Co., et al., to enforce the discharge and injunction of Plum
Creek Timber Co.'s claim.

W.R. Grace & Co. and its affiliated reorganized debtors mailed the
Bar Date Notice to Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.'s address in
Libby, Montana on June 27, 2002, "Current Occupant, 126 Pipe Creek
Road, Libby, MT 59923."  Plum Creek admitted that its physical and
mailing address was the foregoing.  Thus, Plum Creek received the
Bar Date Notice by mail nine months before the Bar Date.

Plum Creek filed proofs of claim with Rust Consulting against
Kootenai Development Company and Grace on June 7, 2010, and
submitted an amended proof of claim on June 30, 2010.

On January 31, 2011, the debtors confirmed and consummated a Plan
of Reorganization, effective on February 3, 2014.  The Plan
provides for a general discharge, a specific discharge of asbestos
property damage liabilities and for a related discharge
injunction.  The debtors moved to enforce the discharge and
injunction provisions of the Plan against Plum Creek's claim.

Plum Creek argued that it did not receive notice to satisfy due
process because there was not scientific certainty as to whether
vermiculite could be absorbed into tree bark in its timberlands.
Alternatively, Plum Creek argued that its failure to file a timely
claim is the result of excusable neglect.

Judge Gross found that Plum Creek received sufficient notice to
satisfy due process concerns as well as the requirements in the
Bankruptcy Rules.  The judge noted that in addition to publication
notice, Plum Creek had actual notice of its claims.  The debtors
mailed the Bar Date Notice to every occupant of a property in
Libby, and Plum Creek has not disputed its receipt of this notice.

Further, Judge Gross noted that an email from Jim Christiansen at
the Environmental Protection Agency, sent on February 18, 2003 to
Jerry Wolcott of Plum Creek clearly stated the risk of
contamination was a serious risk.  The judge held that the email
together with the Bar Date Notice provided Plum Creek with the
incentive it needed to file a proof of claim by the Bar Date.  In
other words, Plum Creek knew to submit a proof of claim and did
not in a timely fashion.

Judge Gross also found that Plum Creek lacks a legitimate reason
for its delay in filing a claim and that is fatal to its attempt
to assert excusable neglect.

A full-text copy of Judge Gross' December 28, 2016 opinion is
available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb01-01139-32812.pdf

Reorganized Debtors are represented by:

          Laura Davis Jones, Esq.
          James E. O'Neill, Esq.
          PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP
          919 North Market Street, 17th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19899Ć’EUR?8705
          Tel: (302)652-4100
          Fax: (302)652-4400
          Email: ljones@pszjlaw.com
                 joneill@pszjlaw.com

            -- and --

          John Donley, Esq.
          Lisa Esayian, Esq.
          Ryan Matthew Hehner, Esq.
          Bryan Vincent Uelk, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS L.L.P.
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL  60654
          Tel: (312)862-2000
          Fax: (312)862-2200
          Email: john.donley@kirkland.com
                 lisa.esayian@kirkland.com
                 bryan.uelk@kirkland.com

            -- and --

          Roger J. Higgins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER HIGGINS
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL  60601
          Tel: (312)666-0431
          Email: rhiggins@rogerhigginslaw.com

Plum Creek Timber Co. is represented by:

          Shanti M. Katona, Esq.
          Jarrett Vine, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1101
          Wilmington, DE  19801
          Tel: (302)252-0920
          Fax: (302)252-0921
          Email: skatona@polsinelli.com
                 jvine@polsinelli.com

                        About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.  Grace employs
approximately 6,500 people in over 40 countries and had 2012 net
sales of $3.2 billion.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).

The Debtors are represented by Adam Paul, Esq., and John Donley,
P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Roger
Higgins, Esq., at The Law Offices of Roger Higgins, in Chicago,
Illinois; and Laura Davis Jones, Esq., James E. O'Neill, Esq.,
and Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones,
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Debtors hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial
advice.

Roger Frankel serves as legal representative for victims of
asbestos exposure who may file claims against W.R. Grace.  Mr.
Frankel, a partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, replaces
David Austern, who was appointed to that role in 2004.
Mr. Frankel has served as legal counsel for Mr. Austern who passed
away in May 2013.  The FCR is represented by Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP as counsel; Phillips Goldman & Spence, P.A., as
Delaware co-counsel; and Lincoln Partners Advisors LLC as
financial adviser.

Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Plan.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.

W.R. Grace defeated four appeals from approval of the Plan.  A
fifth appeal was by secured bank lenders claiming the right to
$185 million of interest at the contractual default rate.
Pursuant to a settlement announced in December 2013, lenders are
to receive $129 million in settlement of the claim for additional
interest.

W.R. Grace & Co. and its debtor affiliates notified the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that they have
satisfied or waived conditions to the occurrence of the effective
date of the First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
co-proposed by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, the Asbestos PI Future Claimants' Representative, and
the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders.  The effective
date of the Plan occurred on Feb. 3, 2014.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss EFH Ch. 11 Petitions Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware denied the motion filed by Shirley
Fenicle, David William Fahy, John H. Jones, and David Heinzmann to
dismiss the Chapter 11 petitions of LSGT Debtors EEC, Inc., EEC
Holdings, Inc., LSGT Sacroc, Inc., and LSGT Gas Co. LLC.

Thirty-one months after the filing of these Chapter 11 cases in
April 2014 and on the eve of the third confirmation hearing in
these cases, several persons asserting asbestos-related claims
against the LSGT Debtors have brought a motion to dismiss the LSGT
Debtors' cases as having been filed in bad faith.  The motion to
dismiss, however, is based upon events that transpired after the
petition date.  The crux of the movants' complaint is that the
plan of reorganization before the Court provides (as did the plan
confirmed in December 2015 that was subsequently rendered void for
unrelated reasons) for the discharge of unmanifested asbestos
claims where the claimant did not timely file a proof of claim
under a bar date order approved in 2015 -- a scenario that was not
contemplated until July 2014 at the earliest.

Judge Sontchi found that the evidence clearly establishes that
based on the totality of the circumstances the LSGT Debtors'
bankruptcy petitions were filed in good faith because the filing
was for a valid bankruptcy purpose and not as a litigation tactic.
The judge noted that the LSGT Debtors' bankruptcy was filed for
three primary purposes:

     -- First, they were filed to avoid immediate cash flow

        insolvency.

     -- Second, the Debtors as a whole were facing the prospect

        of a huge $6.5 billion deconsolidation tax for which
        three of the LSGT Debtors would have been jointly and

        severally liable.  The LSGT Debtors believed that their
        best hope for avoiding a tax bill that would have greatly
        impaired their asbestos creditors was to file bankruptcy
        in order to participate directly in the solution to the
        $6.5 billion tax problem.

     -- Third, the LSGT Debtors filed bankruptcy in the hope of
        negotiating a resolution in bankruptcy that would
        maximize both the value of their assets and the recovery
        on their asbestos related claims.

Thus, Judge Sontchi found that there can be no question that the
LSGT Debtors' decision to file bankruptcy was in good faith and
subsequent events have proven the decision to have been correct.
Furthermore, the judge also found that the motion is barred as
untimely by the doctrine of laches.

The case is In re: ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP., et al., Debtors,
Case No. 14-10979 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del.).

A full-text copy of Judge Sontchi's December 19, 2016 opinion is
available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb14-10979-10414.pdf

                        About Energy Future

Energy Future Holdings Corp., formerly known as TXU Corp., is a
privately held diversified energy holding company with a Portfolio
of competitive and regulated energy businesses in Texas.

Oncor, an 80 percent-owned entity within the EFH group, is the
largest regulated transmission and distribution utility in Texas.

The Company delivers electricity to roughly three million delivery
points in and around Dallas-Fort Worth. EFH Corp. was created in
October 2007 in a $45 billion leverage buyout of Texas power
company TXU in a deal led by private-equity companies Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG Inc.

On April 29, 2014, Energy Future Holdings and 70 affiliated
companies sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 14-10979) after reaching a deal with some key
financial stakeholders to keep its businesses operating while
reducing its roughly $40 billion in debt.

The Debtors' cases have been assigned to Judge Christopher S.
Sontchi (CSS).

As of Dec. 31, 2013, EFH Corp. reported assets of $36.4 billion in
book value and liabilities of $49.7 billion.  The Debtors have $42
billion of funded indebtedness.

EFH's legal advisor for the Chapter 11 proceedings is Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, its financial advisor is Evercore Partners and its
restructuring advisor is Alvarez & Marsal. The TCEH first lien
lenders supporting the restructuring agreement are represented by
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP as legal advisor,
and Millstein & Co., LLC, as financial advisor.

The EFIH unsecured creditors supporting the restructuring
agreement are represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
as
legal advisor, and Centerview Partners, as financial advisor.  The
EFH equity holders supporting the restructuring agreement are
represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, as legal advisor,
and Blackstone Advisory Partners LP, as financial advisor.  Epiq
Systems is the claims agent.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, the successor trustee for
The second-lien noteholders owed about $1.6 billion, is
represented by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.'s William P. Bowden, Esq., and
Gregory A. Taylor, Esq., and Brown Rudnick LLP's Edward S.
Weisfelner, Esq., Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq., Andrew P. Strehle, Esq.,
Jeremy B. Coffey, Esq., and Howard L. Siegel, Esq.  An Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed in the case.
The Committee represents the interests of the unsecured creditors
of only Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company LLC; EFCH's
direct subsidiary, Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company
LLC;
and EFH Corporate Services Company, and of no other debtors.  The
Committee has selected Morrison & Foerster LLP and Polsinelli PC
for representation in this high-profile energy restructuring.  The
lawyers working on the case are James M. Peck, Esq., Brett H.
Miller, Esq., and Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., at Morrison & Foerster
LLP; and Christopher A. Ward, Esq., Justin K. Edelson, Esq.,
Shanti
M. Katona, Esq., and Edward Fox, Esq., at Polsinelli PC.

                          *     *     *

In December 2015, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors'
reorganization plan, which contemplated a tax-free spin of the
company's competitive businesses, including Luminant and TXU
Energy, and the $20 billion sale of its holdings in non-debtor
electricity transaction unit Oncor Electric Delivery Co. to a
consortium of investors.  But the Plan became null and void after
certain first lien creditors notified the occurrence of a "plan
support termination event."

The Debtors filed a new plan of reorganization on May 1, 2016, as
subsequently amended.  The new Chapter 11 plan features
alternative options for dealing with the Company's stake in
electricity transmission unit Oncor.

On Aug. 29, 2016, Judge Sontchi confirmed the Chapter 11 exit
plans of two of Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries, power
generator Luminant and retail electricity provider TXU Energy Inc.
(the "T-Side Debtors").  The Plan became effective on Oct. 3,
2016.

On Sept. 21, 2016, the Debtors filed the E-Side Plan and the
Disclosure Statement for the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant
to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as it Applies to the EFH
Debtors and EFIH Debtors (the "E-Side Debtors").



                            *********

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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *