CAR_Public/170110.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 7



                            Headlines

ADEPTUS HEALTH: Texas Securities Action Underway
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Fortunato" Suit Underway
ANTHEM INC: Can Move PPO Members Into EPOs, Court Rules
ASHFORD INC: Class Suit Over Remington Acquisition Pending
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 20 Date

BIOSYNTECH: Quebec Court Confirms Dismissal of Class Action
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims, Defendants in "Applegate" Suit
CANADA: Veterans Mull Suit Over Marijuana Privacy Breach
CATALINA RESTAURNANT: "Farrar" WARN Act Suit Sent to C.D. Calif.

CONNECTION MOTORS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
DIMENSIONE EVENTI: Parents Call For Suit Over Conductor's Remarks
DS HEALTHCARE: Settlement Discussions in "Shah" Action Ongoing
ELDORADO RESORTS: Defending "Assad" Merger Class Suit
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Retirement Plans Appointed Lead Plaintiffs
EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Judge Threatens to Transfer Venue of "Brosnan"
FAIRPOINT ENERGY: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses
FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Complaint Remains Pending
FBR & CO: Motion to Dismiss "Hull" Suit Remains Pending

FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Another Class Action Over Defeat Devices
FORD MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Certify Power Steering Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Shattering Sunroofs
GENESEO: Sued By Retirees Over Health Insurance
GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Ferrare" Suit Working on Settlement

GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "McLaughlin" Suit Working on Settlement
GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Working on Settlement
GREEN DOT: Suits Over Disruption in Service Pending
HATCHIMALS: Lawsuit Threats After Toys Won't Hatch
HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hong" Stock Suit Over Equity Awards
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Individual Customer's Action Dismissed
INTELIQUENT-INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Illinois
INTREXON CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to Feb. 23
J.G. WENTWORTH: Still Defending Class Action in Illinois

JOHNS HOPKINS: Compensation Announced For Plaintiffs in Lawsuit
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Securities Litigation Underway
KMART CORP: Should've Paid OT, Former Assistant Manager Says
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Securities Suit in San Mateo Remains Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending

LIFELOCK INC: Appeal Briefs Due in January through March 2017
LIFELOCK INC: April 10 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Action
LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Appeal Not Yet Set
LM FUNDING: Judge Certifies Deceptive Trade Practice Class Action
MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Extra Value Meal Pricing

MEDTRONIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit Over Infuse
MICHIGAN: UIA Software Incorrectly Snares Thousands
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Tripp" Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
MISSOURI: Justice Center Files Suit vs. Dept. of Corrections
MONAKER GROUP: Responds to Securities Class Suit Filed in Florida

MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $16MM Related to Modafinil Settlement
MYLAN N.V.: Bid to Dismiss Case Over Pioglitazone Still Pending
MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Federal Securities Case Underway
MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Securities Suit in Israel Pending
MYLAN N.V.: Defending Against EpiPen Auto-Injector Consumer Suit

MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces 16 Digoxin Price-Fixing Suits
MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces Pravastatin Price-Fixing Suit
NEW YORK: Bill Requiring State to Pay Indigent Defense Vetoed
NEW YORK REIT: "Jacobs" Action Voluntarily Dismissed
NICOLET RESTAURANT: Court Relies on Spokeo to Dismiss FACTA Case

NORTH AMERICAN: Carnival Workers Sue Over Unpaid OT
ORBIT CORP: Aggrieved Apartment Buyers File Representative Suit
PALOS VERDES, CA: Security Measures to Be Enforced at Lunada Bay
PENNSYLVANIA: School Pensions Plan Might Recover Funds Lost
PORSCHE: Beige Interior Glare Lawsuit Settlement Reached

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jan. 23 Hearing on Discovery Protocol Bid
RESOLUTE FOREST: "Reynolds" Class Suit in Preliminary Stage
REX ENERGY: Plaintiff Appeal in "Cardinale" Case Remains Pending
ROTI MODERN: Sued Over Too Many Credit Card Digits on Receipts
RYE GOLF: Settles Employees' Wage Class Action for $1 Million

SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss PFOA Class Action
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Investment Suit Remains Pending
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Remains Pending
SEATTLE GENETICS: Rosen Law Investigating Securities Claims
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Baker" Class Action Still Pending

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Consumer Suit Underway
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Class Action Still Pending
SIENTRA INC: Settlement Reached in Stockholder Class Actions
SIF CONSULTANTS: Summary Judgment in "Williams" Suit Affirmed
SOLARCITY CORP: Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Under Appeal

SOLARCITY CORP: Discovery Underway in TCPA Action
SOLARCITY CORP: Bids to Dismiss, Transfer "Gibbs" Suit Pending
SOLARCITY CORP: Defending Stockholder Class Action
SPOKEO INC: 9th Cir. Hears Oral Argument in FCRA Class Action
STARLINE TOURS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations

SYNGENTA: Farmers Receive Notice to Join GMO Corn Class Action
TESLA MOTORS: Model X Owner Files Lawsuit in California
TESLA MOTORS: Korean Actor's Sudden Acceleration Suit Hit Stock
TEXAS: Kept Children in Foster Homes With No 24-Hour Supervision
UNILEVER: Faces Class Action Over St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub

UNITED STATES: IRS Fights Bid to Prevent Coinbase Data Search
UNITED STATES: Judge Expected to Vacate Disabilities Suit
VALVE CORP: Faces New Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
VANGUARD NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss LRE Merger Suit Underway
VANGUARD NATURAL: Court Dismissed Eagle Rock Merger Suit

VANGUARD NATURAL: Debt Exchange Lawsuit in Early Stages
WASTE MANAGEMENT: No Trial Schedule Yet for Landfill Class Action
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Status Conference Set for Jan. 25
WISCONSIN: Board to Talk Gender Identity Services Coverage
WWE: Seeks Dismissal of Wrestlers' Amended Class Action Complaint

ZAFGEN INC: First Circuit Appeal in "Bessler" Case Underway

* NDP Gives Update on Canadian Tobacco Industry Lawsuit
* Plaintiffs Attorneys Says Firms Need to Comply to Avoid Lawsuits


                            *********


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Texas Securities Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
Adeptus Health Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a securities class action complaint in
Texas.

On October 27, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed by the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.  The complaint also names as
defendants, among others, the members of the Company's board of
directors, Sterling Partners and the joint book-running managers
in the Company's secondary public offering of shares of its Class
A common stock completed in July 2015 (the "SPO").  The lawsuit is
purportedly filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated and
alleges material misstatements and omissions in the registration
statement relating to the SPO and in the Company's SEC filings and
other corporate reports and public announcements in violation of
the federal securities laws. The action seeks rescission of the
SPO and an award of the costs and attorneys' fees, accountants'
fees and experts' fees of the litigation on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's shares of Class A common stock in the
SPO under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The action also seeks monetary damages and an
award of the costs and attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and
experts' fees of the litigation on behalf of open market
purchasers of the Company's shares of Class A common stock between
April 23, 2015 and November 16, 2015 under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Management believes that the Company has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously.

Adeptus Health Inc. is a holding company with its sole material
asset being a controlling equity interest in Adeptus Health LLC
("Adeptus Health").


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Fortunato" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "In September 2015, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us, including our Chief Executive
Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and members of our Board of
Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk
County Superior Court of Massachusetts.  The complaint is brought
on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common
stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and
purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Phase 2b clinical study
of vadadustat.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of certain stock
purchases, attorneys' fees, and costs."

"In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business
Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts.

The plaintiff's motion to remand was granted in April 2016.

The case is, ANTHONY FORTUNATO, Plaintiff, v. AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-13501-PBS (D.
Mass.).  A copy of the Remand Order is available at
https://is.gd/kh4Frp from Leagle.com.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Suffolk County
Superior Court on August 15, 2016, and the Company served its
memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 14, 2016.

"We believe such claims are without merit and we will engage in a
vigorous defense of such litigation," the Company said.

Akebia is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
of novel proprietary therapeutics based on hypoxia inducible
factor, or HIF, biology and the commercialization of these
products for patients with serious unmet medical needs.


ANTHEM INC: Can Move PPO Members Into EPOs, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------
AISHealth.com reports that at a Nov. 15 hearing in Los Angeles
Superior Court, a judge denied a temporary restraining order that
would have prevented Anthem, Inc.'s California subsidiary from
moving some of its individual PPO members into exclusive provider
organization (EPO) plans, which don't include coverage for out-of-
network services.  The judge, however, did acknowledge that Anthem
Blue Cross violated federal law when it discontinued 2016 PPO
policies and replaced them with EPO products.


ASHFORD INC: Class Suit Over Remington Acquisition Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit related to the Company's acquisition of Remington Lodging
remains pending.

On September 17, 2015, Ashford entered into an Acquisition
Agreement to acquire 80% of Remington Lodging for total
consideration of $331.7 million, with an estimated fair value of
$330.7 million.

On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint challenging the Remington acquisition was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and styled
Campbell v. Bennett et al., Case No. 11796. The complaint names as
defendants each of the members of the Company's board of
directors, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments
GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP, as well as the Company as a
nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders in connection with the Transactions and
that Monty Bennett, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB
Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. In support of these
claims, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair process with
Remington Lodging and the Bennetts and as a result the Company
overpaid for the 80% limited partnership and 100% general
partnership interests in Remington Lodging. The complaint also
alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC contains
certain materially false and/or misleading statements. The action
seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining the special meeting
of stockholders and any vote on the contribution or the stock
issuances or rescinding the Transactions if they are consummated,
or in the alternative an award of damages, as well as unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to any other
relief the court may deem proper. Since the filing of the
complaint, the special meeting of stockholders and related vote
occurred with the stockholders approving the acquisition.

The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with any certainty.
A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
consummation of the Transactions, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely prohibit
consummation of the Transactions. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint but intend to defend the claims raised
in this lawsuit.

Ashford's principal business objective is to provide asset
management and other advisory services to other entities.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 20 Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of Avid Technology, Inc. securities from August 4, 2016
through November 9, 2016, inclusive of the important January 20,
2017 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Avid investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Avid class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1003.html or 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.

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

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 20, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1003.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

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

BIOSYNTECH: Quebec Court Confirms Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Philippe Mathieu, Esq. -- jpmathieu@mccarthy.ca -- of
McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in
In Groupe d'action d'investisseurs dans Biosyntech c. Tsang, 2016
QCCA 1923, the Quebec Court of Appeal (Justices Schrager, Dutil
and Parent) recently confirmed the decision of the Quebec Superior
Court to dismiss at the authorization stage a shareholder class
action against the directors and officers of a public company.

Background

The Petitioner sought leave to institute a class action on behalf
of the shareholders of BioSyntech, a medical device public company
that filed for bankruptcy in 2010, against its eight directors and
officers.  BioSyntech was a biotech start-up and its success
rested on its ability to access capital to develop and market a
promising medical device, BST CarGel.  In the aftermath of the
financial crisis of 2008, BioSyntech was not able to access
sufficient capital to conclude its pivotal trial and reach the
European and Canadian markets with its product, which ultimately
led to its bankruptcy in 2010.  The Petitioner alleged that
BioSyntech's bankruptcy was avoidable and resulted from a pattern
of faults of the directors and officers, who failed to properly
address the company's financial condition. The Petitioner argued
that, as a result of the faults of the directors and officers, the
shareholders were deprived of the possibility to share in the
potential profits of BioSyntech and were therefore entitled to
compensatory damages.

Before the Quebec Superior Court ("QCSC"), the Respondents argued,
inter alia, that the shareholders of BioSyntech did not have the
necessary standing to institute a class action against its
directors and officers since the alleged faults, should they ever
be proven, would have been committed against the company and only
indirectly against its shareholders and the alleged damages (i.e.
the loss in value of BioSyntech's shares) would have been suffered
by the company and only indirectly by its shareholders. The QCSC
accepted the damages argument and dismissed the Motion to
Institute a Class Action on that basis.

On appeal, the Petitioner argued that the QCSC interpreted the
Supreme Court's leading cases of Peoples v. Wise and BCE Inc. v.
1976 Debentureholders too restrictively.  The Petitioner argued
that the Supreme Court opened the door to a direct action by
shareholders against the directors and officers based on the
violation of their duty of care under section 122 b) of the Canada
Business Corporations Act.

The Decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal

The Quebec Court of Appeal ("QCCA") first noted that "the facts of
the matters before the Supreme Court did not strictly require
consideration of whether shareholders are included in
"stakeholders" to whom the directors owed their duty of care under
Section 122 b) C.B.C.A." and that "the debate is ongoing as to
whether a direct right of action is open to shareholders against
directors" (para. 21).  Yet, for the purposes of the appeal, the
QCCA, much like the QCSC, was prepared to adopt the Appellant's
view that shareholders had such a direct right of action against
the directors and officers of a company post-Peoples and BCE Inc.

The QCCA agreed with the Respondents that irrespective of the
question of the duty of care owed by the directors and officers to
the shareholders, the proposed class action in the case at hand
had no chance of success because the damages alleged by the
Petitioner were indirect.  The QCCA referred to other decisions
rendered by the Courts of Appeal in British Columbia (Roback v.
Gardner) and Newfoundland (Npv Management Limited v. Anthony). The
QCCA also referred to the common law rule in Foss v. Harbottle,
whereby shareholders cannot sue a wrongdoer where a company
already has a right of action against the same wrongdoer for the
same damages:

"[23] Indirect damage is not that caused by the act of the
wrongdoer, but rather is caused by the damage which the wrongdoer
caused.  In this case, the damages claimed for the loss of share
value were not caused directly by the directors alleged breach of
their duty of care by not obtaining, for example, adequate
financing for BioSyntech.  That alleged fault might (arguably)
have caused (in whole or in part) the insolvency and inability of
BioSyntech to pursue its business.  It is the insolvency which
caused the shares to lose their value so that such damage would be
caused indirectly to the shareholders by the directors.

[24] Such distinction, at least in the corporate context, is
hardly exclusive to Quebec civil law.  The principle is known in
Common Law jurisdictions as the rule in Foss v. Harbottle. It is
certainly recognized in Quebec and was explained by Laforest, J.
speaking for a unanimous bench of the Supreme Court in Hercules
Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young:

[26] Peoples and BCE did not change the rule in Foss v.
Harbottle -- they did not (and it was not necessary to) address
the rule.  Again, and at best, the only assistance to Appellants
in Peoples and BCE is the recognition of the possibility that the
Section 122 b) C.B.C.A. duty of care is owed by directors directly
to shareholders.  However, there is really nothing in either of
the Supreme Court cases to suggest that a breach of the duty of
care entitles shareholders to recover compensation from directors
for indirect injury."

Our Comments

Importantly, the QCCA confirmed that it is still possible for a
class action in Quebec to be dismissed at the authorization stage,
despite recent Supreme Court and QCCA rulings.  The QCCA refers to
its recent decision in Charles v. Boiron Canada inc., where
Justice Bich questions the utility of the authorization process in
Quebec, but still decides to maintain the dismissal of the Motion
for Authorization.

According to the QCCA, the QCSC's analysis in the case at hand had
not gone beyond the filtering mechanism applicable at the
authorization stage and the authorization judge was correct in
denying authorization based "purely on a meticulous analysis of
the legal argument under-pinning the factual allegations" (para.
33).  Accordingly, it was legitimate for the QCSC to dismiss the
proposed class action at the authorization stage.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of holders of Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc. ("Brocade") (NASDAQ:BRCD) common
stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Brocade by
Broadcom Limited and its affiliates (collectively, "Broadcom")
announced on November 2, 2016 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint,
which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Brocade, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and
Broadcom, is captioned Steinberg v. Brocade Communications, Inc.,
Case No. 16-cv-07081-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/brocade-
communications-systems-inc-brcd/.

On November 2, 2016, Brocade entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Broadcom.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Broadcom will acquire Brocade and Brocade
shareholders will receive $12.75 per share in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on December 6, 2016,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Brocade stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information
necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as
to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material
information with respect to Brocade's financial information and
the opinions and analyses of Brocade's financial advisor.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Brocade common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 3, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  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 an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct
actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance
litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts
throughout the United States.


CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims, Defendants in "Applegate" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRAIN C. APPLEGATE, Plaintiff, v. CCI, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01343-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Michael J. Seng issued an order requiring the plaintiff to
either file a First Amended Complaint or notify the Court of his
willingness to proceed only on cognizable claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act
(RA) against the California Correctional Institution (CCI), the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR),
the California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), and J.
Lewis, Deputy Director Policy/Risk Management Services.

Brain C. Applegate is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983.  Applegate is incarcerated at Salinas Valley
State Prison, but complained of acts that occurred at CCI.  He
named the following defendants:

     (1) CCI;
     (2) CCHCS;
     (3) CDCR;
     (4) K. Said, PCP;
     (5) U. Baniga, CME;
     (6) S. Shiesha, CME;
     (7) B. Sanders, AW-ADA;
     (8) C. Wofford, SSA;
     (9) L. Nguyen, M.D.;
    (10) J. Wood, RAP;
    (11) J. Long, RAP;
    (12) E. Garcia, AW-ADA;
    (13) M. Dailo, AW-ADA;
    (14) C. Trotter, CCII;
    (15) J. Walsh, Sr. Psychologist;
    (16) W. Walsh, Chief of M.H.;
    (17) M. Phelphs;
    (18) John Doe, CDCR Lawyer; and
    (19) Lewis.

Applegate, a "long-standing ADA prisoner," claimed violations of
the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment and medical
indifference), the RA, and the ADA.  He also alleged a state law
tort of negligence.  He sought money damages and injunctive
relief.

Judge Seng found that Applegate's complaint stated cognizable ADA
and RA claims against CCI, CDCR, CCHCS, and defendant Lewis in his
official capacity.  The judge found that Applegate's complaint
stated no other cognizable claims.

Judge Seng granted Applegate the opportunity to file an amended
complaint to cure noted defects, to the extent he believes in good
faith he can do so.  The judge stated that if Applegate chooses to
amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts resulted in a
deprivation of his constitutional rights.

Judge Seng also stated that if Applegate does not wish to file an
amended complaint, and he is agreeable to proceeding only on the
claims found to be cognizable, he may file a notice informing the
Court that he does not intend to amend, and he is willing to
proceed only on his cognizable claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Seng's December 28, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/Vg2qWj from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Veterans Mull Suit Over Marijuana Privacy Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Gunn , writing for Herald News, reports that Veterans
Affairs Canada could be facing another lawsuit after a privacy
breach involving 3,000 veterans who are part of the federal
medical marijuana program.

Veterans began reporting the breach on Dec. 30 that effectively
outed them as medical marijuana users.

A VAC mailout informing patients about recent reimbursement
changes lets anyone looking at the outside of the envelope know it
was issued under the federal medical marijuana program.

A photo of the letter posted by caregiver Carla Murray on a
Facebook group for Canadian veterans shows the phrase "Re:
Cannabis for Medical Purposes" on the envelope.

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr's office responded to concerns
on Dec. 30 after being contacted by the Chronicle Herald.

"We take the privacy of veterans very seriously and have asked the
department to review this situation with Medavie-Blue Cross," the
spokesman said.

Ms. Murray, whose husband uses medical marijuana to treat a
variety of conditions, called the violation a slap in the face.

She said she and her husband are concerned for their safety as
their Saskatchewan neighbourhood has been the target of more than
20 break-ins in recent months, most by people seeking drugs and
booze.

Ms. Murray said the experience has been triggering her husband's
PTSD.

"(For many people) with PTSD, especially veterans, security is the
whole issue.  It's always about whether your house is secure,
whether your family is safe," she said.  "Paranoia is part of it."

Ms. Murray has reached out to VAC and a resolution officer is
supposed to be in touch with her.  But, she said, it's not good
enough.

"The damage has already been done."

She said she is planning to get in touch with a lawyer to discuss
legal options.

A similar situation arose in November of 2013, when more than
41,000 Canadians received letters from Health Canada revealing
them as medical marijuana users.

The envelopes had the phrase "Marihuana Medical Access Program" on
the outside in the return address beside the name and address of
the recipient.

A class action is still before the courts.

Veteran Jason Hemsworth said Dec. 30 he received a piece of mail
with information regarding his medical marijuana prescription,
which is covered through Medavie-Blue Cross.  It had "Re: Cannabis
for Medical Purposes" on the outside.

Inside it said "Protected - Personal Information."

Mr. Hemsworth said a VAC supervisor confirmed the letter should
have been sent in a windowless envelope.

"Having my address as well as my personal medical information put
out there by those that are supposed to keep it safe is a grave
violation, as well as a security risk for not only myself and my
family," he said.


CATALINA RESTAURNANT: "Farrar" WARN Act Suit Sent to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JERI FARRAR and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, VS. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and FOOD
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-09066-RSWL-AGR
(October 25, 2015) was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The case arises from Defendants' alleged failure to provide
Plaintiffs with 60 days advance notice of a mass layoff or plant
closing in violation of the Federal and California Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

CATALINA RESTAURANT operates and manages Coco's Bakery and Carrows
Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff R. Dingwall, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEFF R. DINGWALL, PLC
     555 West Beech Street, Suite 510
     San Diego, CA 92 101
     Phone: 619.796.3464
     Fax: 619.717.8762
     E-mail: jeff@jrdingwall.com

        - and -

     Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
     TRAN LAW FINN LLP
     9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
     Houston, TX 77042
     Phone: 713.223 .8855
     Fax: 713.623 .6399
     E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


CONNECTION MOTORS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE RUIZ and DANIEL SOTO, Plaintiffs, v. THE CONNECTION MOTORS,
INC., a Florida corporation, and ANTONIO MELERO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25274-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 20,
2016), seek on behalf of all those similarly situated unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Connection Motors, Inc. -- http://www.theconnectionmotors.com/
-- sells used cars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian Militzok, Esq.
     MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
     Wells Fargo Building
     4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: (954) 780-8228
     Fax: (954) 719-4016
     E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com


DIMENSIONE EVENTI: Parents Call For Suit Over Conductor's Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sputnik News reports that an Italian orchestra conductor who told
children at a Disney Christmas concert in Rome that Santa isn't
real has been fired and organizers have distanced themselves from
his remarks.

At the end of a stage performance of Disney's "Frozen" in Rome's
Auditorium Parco della Musica earlier this week, conductor Giacomo
Loprieno took the stage and said "Santa Claus doesn't exist,"
local media reported.

Loprieno was angry that families were leaving the event early to
beat traffic, according to The Sun.

Parents at the show have been expressing their outrage on the
event's Facebook page, Dimensione Eventi Torino, and elsewhere on
social media. One parent called the conductor's actions
"despicable."

"What happened that evening was outrageous . . ..  I hope this
'gentleman' will lose his job, and I am angry at myself for having
applauded him," Oberto Bevilacqua posted on the Facebook page, The
Local reports.

Other angry parents have started a new Facebook group to complain
about the incident, with some calling for a class action suit
against the organizers.

Loprieno has been replaced by conductor Marco Dallara -- who
appears on the event page arm in arm with Santa himself.

Responding in a statement, the organizers said, "Like all those
who were present, we remain bewildered by this personal
declaration by the conductor after the event ended," Deutsche
Welle reports.

"What was said by the conductor of the orchestra was totally out
of place and is an arbitrary gesture on the part of one person. As
an organization, we work to make the event enjoyable for all the
families."


DS HEALTHCARE: Settlement Discussions in "Shah" Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
DS Healthcare Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that settlement
discussions in the Prasant Shah class action are ongoing.

On March 29, 2016, DS Healthcare, Daniel Khesin, and certain
former members of the Board of Directors were sued in a class
action styled, Prasant Shah v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., et. al.,
Case No. 16-60661, which is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. A later-filed class
action has been consolidated. The class action arises from the
Company's March 23, 2016 and March 28, 2016 8-K filings, which
stated, in pertinent part, that the audit committee had concluded
that the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of
the Company for the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and
September 30, 2015 (the "June and September 2015 Quarters"),
should no longer be relied upon because of certain errors in such
financial statements, and that Daniel Khesin had been terminated
for cause and removed a Chairman and a member of the Board of
Directors.

Plaintiffs had until November 2, 2016 to file an Amended
Complaint, which DS Healthcare must respond to no later than
December 19, 2016.

The Company also received the first of three related shareholder
derivative demands on March 29, 2016. A mediation concerning the
class action and the derivative demands was scheduled for October
17, 2016, in Miami, Florida. This meeting resulted in ongoing
settlement discussions.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Defending "Assad" Merger Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. is defending the "Assad" class action
lawsuit related to a merger agreement, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On September 19, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Eagle I Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub A"),
and Eagle II Acquisition Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub B"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other
things, (1) the merger of Merger Sub A with and into Isle, with
Isle as the surviving entity (the "First Step Merger"), and (2) a
subsequent merger whereby Isle will merge with and into Merger Sub
B, with Merger Sub B as the surviving entity (the "Second Step
Merger" and together with the First Step Merger, the "Mergers").

In connection with the Mergers, a class action lawsuit was filed
by a purported stockholder of the Company alleging breach of
fiduciary duty by the Company board of directors in connection
with the Mergers. The case was filed on November 8, 2016 in the
Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and is
captioned Assad v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., et. al, case no. CV 16-
02312. The case, which purports to be a class action on behalf of
all of the stockholders of the Company, alleged, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty in failing to disclose all
material information to stockholders in seeking approval of the
issuance of shares of Company Common Stock in the Mergers and
requests injunctive relief and an award of costs incurred by the
plaintiff in the action.

Resorts owns and operates the Eldorado Resort Casino Reno, a
premier hotel, casino and entertainment facility centrally located
in downtown Reno, Nevada ("Eldorado Reno"), which opened for
business in 1973. Resorts also owns Eldorado Resort Casino
Shreveport ("Eldorado Shreveport"), a 403-room all suite art deco-
style hotel and a tri-level riverboat dockside casino complex
situated on the Red River in Shreveport, Louisiana, which
commenced operations under its previous owners in December 2000.


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Fishell, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that when
Oxford resident Frank Hodson called to see about a lower power
rate with his supplier, Electricity Maine, he reportedly learned
that the deal came with a catch: an agreement he would not join
any class action lawsuits against the company.

Attorneys pursuing just that kind of lawsuit against Electricity
Maine and its new Texas-based owners allege the change came in
response to the potential multi-million-dollar class action suit
and have asked a judge to prevent the company from including those
terms while the case is open.

Such agreements require customers to waive their right to pursue
any contract disputes before a judge and instead go alone before a
third-party arbitrator who would hear and decide the case.

An attorney for Electricity Maine's new owner, Spark Energy, wrote
in an email that the change was not made in response to the suit.

"Electricity Maine's existing terms of service do contain certain
standard provisions that are commonly used in consumer contracts
in various consumer facing industries, including an arbitration
provision," Michelle Pector, an attorney representing Spark,
wrote.  "These provisions were contained in Electricity Maine's
terms of service prior to the filing of the lawsuit."

The company's terms of service filed with its latest annual report
do not include such terms and neither does a version updated by
the company in July.  Plaintiffs said the company changed its
terms and conditions in an Oct. 24 revision.

They filed the lawsuit Nov. 18 but claimed they first notified
Spark and Electricity Maine of their claims in a letter sent Sept.
26.

That lawsuit alleges the company and its leaders deceived
customers during late 2012 and early 2013 with promises of savings
by switching from the default electricity rate.  The plaintiffs
estimated damages of $35 million.

The suit followed a Bangor Daily News investigation detailing how
companies have marketed their services and how customers would
have saved $50 million from 2012 to 2015 by staying with the
default standard offer rate.  That report found Electricity Maine
collected a net premium of about $36 million during that time,
including savings of about $2.8 million for customers in 2012.

In their filing on Dec. 23, the plaintiffs said the company is
adding the arbitration clauses to terms for customers it
automatically re-enrolls and for customers who have called to ask
about ending service or lowering prices.

In written testimony, Electricity Maine customer Hodson testified
that he called the company to renegotiate his terms after learning
of the class action lawsuit.  He was offered a lower rate, to
which he agreed, without realizing the new terms included an
arbitration agreement.

For any customers with the company since 2012, the plaintiffs
argued that inclusion of an arbitration agreement or class action
waiver in new contracts would "interfere with the administration
of justice in this case."

Ms. Pector wrote that those allegations "are not accurate" and
that the company would file a detailed response in the federal
court case.

Spark took over Electricity Maine after its $28 million purchase
closed on Aug. 1.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Retirement Plans Appointed Lead Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
appointed the City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters'
Retirement Plan and the City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as Lead Plaintiffs and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as Lead Counsel in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed
July 19, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or Sponn, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016,
inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its senior officers and directors, collectively, the
Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements about the
government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that the
Company's five-year exclusive procurement contract with HHS would
be renewed and omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking
unspecified damages, including legal costs.

On October 25, 2016 the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.

The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
those claims.

Emergent BioSolutions Inc., or Emergent, is a specialty
biopharmaceutical business focused on countermeasures that address
public health threats, specifically Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive, or CBRNE, threats as well as
emerging infectious diseases, or EID.  The U.S. government is the
primary purchaser of the Company's products and historically
provided the Company with substantial funding for the development
of product candidates.


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Judge Threatens to Transfer Venue of "Brosnan"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BROSNAN, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN HOLDINGS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-06508-SI (N.D. Cal.)., District
Judge Susan Illston directed the parties to show cause in writing
no later than January 12, 2017, why this case should not be
transferred. If the parties do not respond by January 12, 2017,
this action will be transferred to the Central District of
California for further proceedings.

On December 23, 2016, defendants Experian Holdings, Inc. and
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. filed a motion to transfer
venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404.  Experian Defendants ask
that this case be transferred to the Central District of
California, where over 40 class action lawsuits have been
consolidated before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford in In re
Experian Data Breach Litigation.

Plaintiff seems to be in agreement with Experian Defendants.

Plaintiff, who appears pro se, sought permission to file this
lawsuit from the Honorable William Alsup of this district. Case
No. 15-mc-80297.  Following Judge Alsup's grant of the request,
plaintiff filed a notice of related case on May 5, 2016. Plaintiff
informed the Court of the related case of Bhuta v. Experian, No.
8:15-cv-01592-AG-DFM, in the Central District of California, and
asked the Court to transfer plaintiff's case "to the same judge
assigned to the Bhuta v. Experian case." Case No. 15-mc-80297,
Docket No. 5.

Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. has answered plaintiff's complaint
and as yet has taken no position on the requests to transfer
venue.

Experian is represented by Edward San Chang -- echang@jonesday.com
-- Jones Day.

T-Mobile US, Inc., is represented by Nancy Sher Cohen --
ncohen@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP.


FAIRPOINT ENERGY: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Fishell, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that
contracts with credit card companies, banks, cellphone providers
and others often include terms preventing customers from taking a
company to court, alone or as part of a class with other
customers.

The contracts instead require customers to pursue any claims
through another legal avenue, called arbitration, where a third-
party assesses and decides how to resolve the dispute.

The clauses are controversial.  Supporters argue arbitration is a
more efficient way to resolve disputes and that plaintiffs'
lawyers can use frivolous class-action cases to net big fees.

Consumer advocates argue the clauses are just a legal hurdle to
shield a company from customers pooling resources to pursue shared
claims.  A 2015 investigation by The New York Times concluded that
few people go to arbitration after their efforts at a class-action
case is blocked.

Such agreements are standard fare in many industries (the
Washington Post reported the NYT series did not detail a clause
for customers of its "Times Journeys" trip-organizing business).

The issue has risen its head in a potential Maine class-action
case that could involve thousands of households, filed against the
retail electricity company Electricity Maine.

Court filings show the company, whose sale to the Houston-based
Spark Energy closed Aug. 1, has added an arbitration clause and
class-action waiver to their contracts with customers.  The
second-largest retail electricity seller in the state, FairPoint
Energy, has such a clause, too.

The important part of those terms, from Electricity Maine's new
terms, look something like this:

FairPoint Energy's looks like this:

The agreements face a blow in one important sector -- finance --
in the coming weeks.  The federal Consumer Finance Protection
Bureau plans to unveil a rule in the coming weeks to prohibit
banks from including such provisions in contracts for bank
accounts, credit cards and loans, according to Forbes.

The passages are an important detail for customers shopping around
or offered power contracts, particularly as those supply
agreements can be complex.

For instance, they can change once a contract is up.

Our reporting found suppliers regularly charged customers more
than the power rate every home gets by default, netting a premium
of at least $50 million between 2012 and 2015.

Customers whose individual rates changed told us they started with
a retail provider for low introductory rates.  They later forgot
about their contract.

Customers of FairPoint Energy and Gulf Electricity told Bangor
Daily News for an investigation published in August that it
happened to them.

State law allows companies to automatically renew those contracts
when they're up, notifying customers by letter or email, without
any confirmation that customers got the message.  Customers have a
right to reject a contract for up to five days after the company
sends the new terms of service, if they happen to see them in that
time.

For such customers, arbitration clauses mean they are on their own
to try and reclaim any money from those contracts.

Lawyers for the two customers suing Electricity Maine have said
the company's terms before September 2016 did not include
arbitration agreements or class-action waivers.

An attorney for Spark said the addition of the arbitration clause
was not in response to the lawsuit and wrote that the company's
formal response to the plaintiffs' latest motion would address
multiple points the company said "are not accurate."


FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Complaint Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
An initial conference in the case, Waterford Township Police &
Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., has
been adjourned to April 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Laura
Taylor Swain.

FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, the previously disclosed putative
class action lawsuit of Waterford Township Police & Fire,
Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, was dismissed in its entirety on March 30, 2016. The
Court ruled that the operative amended complaint, filed on January
23, 2015, failed to allege any material misstatements.  The Second
Amended Complaint asserted claims against all the underwriters,
including FBRCM, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act in
connection with offerings in September and December 2013.

Plaintiffs have requested that the court grant them permission to
amend their complaint a third time.  Briefing on that motion is
complete as of June 23, 2016 and a ruling is pending.

Regional Management continues to indemnify all the underwriters,
including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement.


FBR & CO: Motion to Dismiss "Hull" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, Hull v. Miller
et al., briefing on the defendants' motions to dismiss is pending.

In November 2015, MLV was named a defendant in two putative class
action lawsuits alleging substantially identical claims against
the officers and directors and underwriters of Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. ("Miller"). The lawsuits, styled Goldberg v.
Miller et al., and Gaynor v. Miller et al., are pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, and allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with 6 offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26; 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151 million. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement
of certain costs and expenses.

Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller
in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in
October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller.

A subsequent complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on May 12, 2016.  The
lawsuit, styled Hull v. Miller et al., alleges identical claims to
the previously filed complaints under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against eight of the same underwriters, including
MLV, and the officers and directors of Miller.  Briefing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss is pending.

The Company said, "In accordance with applicable accounting
guidance, we establish an accrued liability for litigation and
regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies
that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be
an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss
contingency is not both probable and estimable, we do not
establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory
matter develops, management, in conjunction with counsel,
evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss
contingency that is probable and estimable. The pending cases
discussed above involving FBRCM and MLV are at a preliminary
stage, and based on management's review with counsel and present
information known by management, a loss contingency for these
matters was not probable and estimable as of September 30, 2016."

"In certain circumstances, broker-dealers and asset managers may
also be held liable by customers and clients for losses sustained
on investments. In recent years, there has been an increasing
incidence of litigation and actions by government agencies and
self-regulatory organizations involving the securities industry,
including class actions that seek substantial damages. We are also
subject to the risk of litigation, including litigation that may
be without merit. As we intend to actively defend any such
litigation, significant legal expenses could be incurred. An
adverse resolution of any future litigation against us could
materially affect our financial condition, operating results and
liquidity."


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Another Class Action Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wayland, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit alleging that diesel-powered heavy-duty
pickups made by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV used defeat devices
intended to cheat emissions testing was filed on Dec. 23 in United
States District Court in Detroit.  At least one other lawsuit
involving the heavy-duty pickups had been filed earlier.

The latest lawsuit names FCA US, the company's North American-
based operations, as well as engine supplier Cummins Inc.  It
accuses the companies of using software designed to conceal its
vehicles' emissions in more than 450,000 heavy-duty 2500 and 3500
Dodge and Ram pickups from the 2007-2012 model years with
6.7-liter diesel engines from Cummins.

The suit, which includes plaintiff Jeremy Perdue, of North
Carolina, is similar to another class-action lawsuit filed in
November by four plaintiffs in California and Texas against both
companies.

Both suits include accusations of racketeering as well as breach
and violation of warranties, fraudulent concealment and breach of
contract.

U.S. regulators including the Environmental Protection Agency have
made no such allegations against the companies.

Representatives from the companies could not immediately be
reached for comment on Dec. 28.  However, both denied the
accusations in November.

"Based on the information available to it, FCA US does not believe
that the claims brought against it are meritorious," the company
previously said.  "FCA US will contest this lawsuit vigorously."

Cummins spokesman Jon M. Mills said in November, "We're deeply
disappointed in the effort to tarnish our image and we will
vigorously defend ourselves.  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."

Both lawsuits request a jury trial and seek compensatory damages
and other financial relief.

The lawsuits are separate from a class-action lawsuit filed
Dec. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California that alleges diesel models of the automaker's Ram 1500
light-duty pickup and Jeep Grand Cherokee models were engineered
to deceive emissions testers.

That suit names the automaker as well as supplier Robert Bosch
GmbH of installing software to mask excess exhaust emissions.  The
German-based supplier was behind the software tied to German
automaker Volkswagen AG's diesel emissions-cheating scandal that
led to a $14.7 billion settlement.

Wolfsburg-based VW faces an industry-record $16.5 billion in
criminal and civil litigation fines after admitting in 2015 that
its diesel cars were outfitted with a devices that lowered
emissions to legal levels only when it detected the vehicle was
being tested.

Volkswagen has agreed to a settlement with U.S. regulators that
calls for the company to spend about $10 billion to fix or buy
back about 475,000 polluting 2.0-liter vehicles as a part of a
$14.7 billion deal between regulators and the beleaguered German
automakers.  Under that agreement, Volkswagen will compensate
owners who purchased the diesels before September 2015 with
payments of $5,100 to $10,000, depending on the age of the car.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Certify Power Steering Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
Focus and Fusion electronic power assisted steering (EPAS) lawsuit
won't be certified as a class-action after a judge ruled the
plaintiffs can't prove all owners experienced harm from the
alleged defect.

The Ford EPAS lawsuit was filed as a proposed class-action in 2014
after owners complained about their cars suddenly losing power
steering while driving.  The 2010-2014 Ford Fusion and 2012-2014
Ford Focus cars allegedly have defects in the sensors and steering
gear assemblies that cause failures of the EPAS systems.

The plaintiffs say Ford has known about the problems for years,
problems that can cost owners $2,000 for repairs, especially when
the steering problems typically pop up shortly after the
warranties expire.

Ford allegedly changed from a hydraulic system to an
electromechanical system to increase fuel economy by taking
pressure off the engine, something that caused the EPAS problems.

Ford has ordered recalls for steering problems for the Focus and
Fusion, specifically a May 2015 recall of 2011-2012 Ford Fusion
cars after the automaker said an electrical connection in the
steering gear could cause a loss of power steering.

While battling for class-action certification, the plaintiffs
received bad news in 2015 when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H.
Koh dismissed the suit after saying it was "unduly burdensome,"
but she gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend the complaint.  After
the complaint was amended, Ford filed another motion to dismiss
the power steering lawsuit, but the judge denied Ford's motion.

The automaker asked the judge to deny class certification because
if power steering defects do exist, the plaintiffs can't claim a
common defect because the Focus and Fusion cars were built at
different times.  In addition, Ford says many plaintiffs shouldn't
be included in the lawsuit because they purchased the cars used or
for business purposes.

In denying class certification, the judge ruled certain claims
contained in the lawsuit are without merit because Ford had
ordered a recall to fix power steering problems, leaving
injunctive relief unnecessary and baseless.

The judge also ruled class-action certification is denied because
members of the lawsuit can't prove they all were told the same
things about how the EPAS systems worked.

Judge Koh also ruled an expert used by the plaintiffs didn't
present evidence that corresponded to the theory of liability in
the lawsuit and didn't use a proper model for figuring damages.

The Ford power steering lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District for
the Northern District of California - William Philips et al v.
Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Baron & Budd PC, Grant &
Eisenhofer PA, and Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Shattering Sunroofs
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle De Leon at Northern California Record reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against Ford Motor Co. following
the complaints from consumers that the sunroofs of some of the
vehicle models have reported defects.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
received a complaint against Ford which stated that at least 70
Ford vehicle owners have complained of the defective sunroofs.
According to the court documents, approximately 80 of the
panoramic sunroofs issued by Ford allegedly have shattered
suddenly. The incidents were also submitted to the National
Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

"NHTSA was informed of this problem in Ford vehicles as early as
2008," the lawyers said in the complaint, according to GlassBytes.
"At least five NHTSA complaints in 2008 were related to panoramic
sunroofs shattering in the Ford Edge."

One of the most pressing concerns brought forward by the lawsuit,
Douglas Krebsbach, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, is the safety
risks posed by the shattering sunroofs. The reports submitted to
the NHTSA allege that several drivers had been in accidents and
near-miss accidents because of the glass exploding. Aside from
these incidents, the other vehicle owners claimed to sustain cuts
and wounds from the falling glass.

"The shattering events are so powerful that startled drivers
compare it to the sound of a gunshot, after which glass fragments
rain down upon the occupants of the vehicle, sometimes while
driving at highway speeds," the complainants said in their lawsuit
against Ford, according to a news release from law firm Simmons
Hanly Conroy.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs aim to earn national and state
class certification. They also seek to receive injunctive relief.
In addition, the lawyers are fighting to get damages in behalf of
their clients as well as other consumers who purchased or rented
any vehicle under Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury that also had a
sunroof spontaneously shatter.

The documents indicated that one of the reasons Ford's vehicle
models had problems with spontaneously shattering sunroofs is the
switch the automaker made in its materials. The disputed vehicles
had tempered glass instead of the usual laminated glass the
company used in making their panoramic sunroofs. Ford also
allegedly used "thinner glass" in the vehicle models.

"We trust that the vehicles we choose to drive will keep us and
our families safe from accidents, including those caused by
defects that car manufacturers have incorporated into their
automobiles. Car manufacturers must be held accountable for
defects that contribute to accidents and injury to drivers of
their vehicles." Paul Hanly, the lead counsel for the case and a
shareholder at Simmons Hanly Conroy, said via the news release.

"While several other automakers, including Volkswagen and Hyundai,
have initiated voluntary recalls on their vehicles experiencing
the same sunroof-shattering defect, Ford continues to deny owner
and lessor warranty claims, much less to institute a recall of
these defective vehicles," Hanly said.

The following Ford models are named as subjects of the case:

Edge 2007-present

Flex 2009-2016

Focus 2009-2016

Fusion 2010-present

Explorer 2011-2016

F-150 2011-2016

Mustang 2009-2014

Escape 2013-2016

Transit Connect 2014-2106

C-Max 2013-2016

Lincoln MKX 2007-2016

Lincoln MKS 2009-2015

Lincoln MKZ 2013-2016

Lincoln MKT 2010-2016

Mercury Milan 2010-2011

Mercury Montego 2010-2011


GENESEO: Sued By Retirees Over Health Insurance
-----------------------------------------------
Lisa Hammer at QCOnline.com reports that a class action suit on
behalf of some Geneseo retirees regarding health insurance was
filed in Henry County Circuit Court.

The suit alleges the city was wrong, five years ago, to have
changed the proportional way the city and the retirees contributed
to premiums; for example, the contribution had been 50-50 for an
employee with 10 to 14 years of service but rose for retirees
after that date.

Filed by former police officer Larry Dawson on behalf of the rest,
the suit said there might be up to 25 people involved but they
didn't know without access to city records.

City administrator Lisa Kotter said the city was talking strictly
with six or seven non-union members in initial discussions and
that agreements with union members had been worked out previously.
She said she had not yet seen the suit.

The suit claims the change, made by a prior city council, is in
violation of both the contract and state constitution. It seeks
$50,000 or more and restoration to the previous promised premium
agreement.


GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Ferrare" Suit Working on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Anthony Ferrare are working towards
finalizing a settlement.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff.

On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's
motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law
in further support of its motion to dismiss.

On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay
and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. The parties
participated in mediation, and entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with respect to a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned putative class action.

There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU
that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The
parties notified the Court of that development and are working
towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved
by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit
are without merit.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").


GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "McLaughlin" Suit Working on Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, McLaughlin v. IDT Energy, Case No. 1:14-cv-04107
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric N. Vitaliano entered an order granting a
Motion to stay.  Per the parties' request, this matter is stayed
through February 1, 2017 in order to facilitate settlement.
Correspondingly, the Court extends defendants' leave to renew
their motion to dismiss to February 2.

Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Louis McLaughlin are working towards
finalizing a settlement.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a
result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a
variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT
Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program
from July 2, 2008.

On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New
York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie
Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd.
(collectively, "IDT Energy").

On February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the named plaintiff opposed that motion.

The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with
respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative
class action.

There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU
that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The
parties notified the Court of that development and are working
towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved
by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit
are without merit.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").


GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Working on Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Kimberly Aks are working towards
finalizing a settlement.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present. The parties were engaged in discovery prior to
the mediation.

On April 20, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on behalf of herself and all IDT Energy customers in New Jersey
against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy
International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. On June 27, 2016,
defendants Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International
Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On August 26, 2016, the named plaintiff opposed that motion and
IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of
its motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss,
but the parties agreed to set aside that decision to give the
plaintiff an opportunity to submit opposition papers that had not
been considered by the Court in rendering its decision. The
parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with
respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative
class action.  There are a number of material issues not addressed
by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be
finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and
are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to
be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in
this lawsuit are without merit.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").


GREEN DOT: Suits Over Disruption in Service Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending two putative class action complaints related to
disruption in service.

The Company said, "During the three months ended June 30, 2016, we
continued our planned conversion of customer files from our legacy
third-party card processor to our new third-party card processor.
As part of the conversion process, a small percentage of our
active cardholders experienced limited disruptions in service that
resulted in losses to us including, but not limited to,
approximately $4.1 million in specific credits we paid to our
customers and specific cardholder transaction losses incurred by
us as a result of the service disruption. These specific losses
have been fully reimbursed by our new third-party processor, while
other expenses we incurred as a result of the disruption in
service were not reimbursed to us."

"As a result of this limited disruption in service, two putative
class action complaints were filed during the three months ended
June 30, 2016. Any settlement amount paid to resolve the
consolidated class actions will be borne equally between us and
our new third-party card processor.

"During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we recorded an
estimated accrual of approximately $2.8 million, which represents
our portion of the estimated total settlement amount inclusive of
legal fees, of which our insurance carrier has agreed to reimburse
us for up to approximately $2.3 million. We recorded these amounts
in other accrued liabilities and account receivable, respectively,
on our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2016."

Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States.


HATCHIMALS: Lawsuit Threats After Toys Won't Hatch
--------------------------------------------------
Paula Mooney of Inquisitr reports that the Hatchimals controversy
continues to rage on, this time with talk of a lawsuit emerging.
First off, parents were upset that some Hatchimals wouldn't hatch,
as reported by the Inquisitr. That fact alone has some parents
threatening a class action lawsuit against the Hatchimals maker,
Spin Master.

Along with the Hatchimals not hatching for some upset children,
other problems are being reported -- as claimed in the following
viral video that purports to show a Hatchimal toy cursing.
However, some beg to differ over whether or not the hatched
Hatchimal is saying what the video creator claims.

The video has grown to more than 600,000 views on YouTube and
showed up pretty prominently on the video-sharing website's
trending list. However, the comments section is rife with claims
that the Hatchimal toy is actually saying "hug me" repeatedly
instead of any curse words.

According to Business Insider, parents are still angry enough with
the maker of Hatchimals that at least one of them is threatening a
lawsuit. As seen in the below tweets from Twitter, a class action
lawsuit or other lawsuit reports have been mentioned surrounding
the Hatchimals melee. The fact that so many people paid more than
the retail price for Hatchimals or went through quite a shopping
hassle to garner one of the toys has added to dissatisfaction for
those who couldn't get their Hatchimals to hatch.

Failure to hatch: Hatchimal maker flooded with complaints: Many
parents who shelled out for a . . #business #news
https://t.co/zKL94DaBs5 - Jon (@rivercityjon) December 30, 2016

According to the Spin Master website, after playing with a
Hatchimal while it's still inside the shell, eventually that
little egg should crack and the Hatchimals toy should emerge.
However, some people have reported that their toy wouldn't hatch -
- and frustrated parents would "hatch" the toy themselves by
breaking them open. Others reported that the Hatchimal stopped
cooing and wouldn't do anything when it was time to hatch. One
customer, Nicole Kijurina, reported to Business Insider that of
the three Hatchimals that she bought -- two for her children and
one for a needy family -- the two for her daughters did not hatch.
Nicole ended up "hatching" them herself by ripping open the
Hatchimals when her children cried for her to do so.

Kijurina is one of the parents saying she will file a lawsuit
against the Hatchimals maker if they don't reply to her email by
January 3. People want new Hatchimals or compensation for the toys
that they claim don't work. Lots of posts about crying kids on
Christmas Day flooded the Hatchimals maker's Facebook page.

On Twitter, the following comments about lawsuit talk surrounding
Hatchimals have been published.

St. Pete Bowl Champs: "SpinMaster epic fail on Hatchimals that
don't hatch. Someone needs to call me, not the other way around. I
smell class action . . . #lawsuit"

DawnNYC: "Target bad business to advertise the Hatchimals yet not
sold online and out of stock Ny Tri state area. #Ichecked
#?lawsuit."

JJ Ryan: "Walmart I was told by an associate that all Hatchimals
orders companywide have been cancelled until after Christmas due
to lawsuit. True?"

Meanwhile, others like Facebook users Nick Allen See shared CNN
International's post about Hatchimals, and agreed about the class
action lawsuit threats.

"All them people sold these for $200-350 smh . . 'Most popular toy
of the year.' I hope the maker gets a class action lawsuit."
However, some Facebook users, such as the one who wrote on the
page How to Eat an Elephant about the Hatchimals lawsuit talk,
called it unthinkable that children would cry over the toys not
hatching and that parents would be angry enough to sue or remain
on the phone waiting for customer service for two hours to hatch a
Hatchimal.

Parents Outraged Over Alleged Hatchimal Holiday Toy Fails - ABC
News - https://t.co/inr4Y1TWpb - happy not to have bought one, did
U? - tim (@timinphuket) December 30, 2016


HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
former staff account for a car rental company claims she routinely
worked more than 40 hours per week without being compensated with
overtime pay.

Brianne Gale filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Dec. 2 in the Tampa
Division for the Middle District of Florida against The Hertz
Corp. citing the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
employed by the defendant as hourly, non-exempt employee from
August 2014 to December 2015.  She alleges she was forced to
perform work off-the-clock in order to complete her job duties.
The plaintiffs hold The Hertz Corp. responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to keep or provide an accurate record
of its employees' hours worked, and failed to compensate its
employees of overtime wages.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, unpaid overtime wages, appoint claimant as the
designated representative of the class, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses of litigation and
equitable relief as the court may deem appropriate.  She is
represented by Mitchell L. Feldman of Mitchell L. Feldman PA in
Lutz.

Tampa Division for the Middle District of Florida Case number
8:16-cv-03315


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hong" Stock Suit Over Equity Awards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HONG, individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and derivatively on behalf HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff,
vs. ARA K. HOVNANIAN, ROBERT B. COUTTS, EDWARD A. KANGAS, JOSEPH
A. MARENGI, VINCENT PAGANO JR., J. LARRY SORSBY, and STEPHEN D.
WEINROTH, Defendants, -and- HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 12999-CB (Del.
Ch., December 27, 2016), is a securities lawsuit that seeks, among
others: (1) a declaration that the equity awards denominated in
Class B Stock that were granted to Ara from June 13, 2014 through
June 10, 2016 unlawfully disenfranchised the Company's public
stockholders, and are therefore ultra vires; and
(2) invalidation or rescission of the stock awards granted to Ara
in the form of Class B Stock.

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. designs, constructs, and markets a
variety of housing in sixteen states, and has both homebuilding
and financial services operating segments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ned Weinberger, Esq.
     Thomas Curry, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     300 Delaware Avenue
     Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 573-2540

        - and -

     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     Amy Miller, Esq.
     Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     E-mail: ek@zlk.com
             amiller@zlk.com
             jlindenfeld@zlk.com


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Individual Customer's Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss a class action by a former
individual customer.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged that the former
customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by
the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint
sought, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September
28, 2016, the District Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the file.
The Court noted, among other things, that IB LLC's customer
agreement, federal law and associated industry rules grant IB LLC
broad discretion to close out margin deficient customer accounts
for IB LLC's protection. Should the plaintiffs appeal the
dismissal of the complaint or seek leave to amend and re-file the
complaint, the Company intends to continue its vigorous defense of
the claims.


INTELIQUENT-INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Dec. 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of Inteliquent,
Inc. ("Inteliquent") (NASDAQ:IQNT) common stock in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Inteliquent by GTCR LLC, Onvoy, LLC,
and Onvoy Igloo Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, the "Acquiring
Parties") announced on November 3, 2016 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Inteliquent, its Board of Directors (the "Board"),
and the Acquiring Parties, is captioned Lon v. Inteliquent, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-11244 (N.D. Ill.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/inteliquent-inc-iqnt-
buyout/.

On November 2, 2016, Inteliquent entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Acquiring
Parties.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Inteliquent
shareholders will receive $23.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on December 2, 2016,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Inteliquent stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information
necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as
to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material
information with respect to the opinions and analyses of
Inteliquent's financial advisor and potential conflicts of
interest.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Inteliquent common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 27, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  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 an absent class
member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com
-- regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct
actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance
litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts
throughout the United States.


INTREXON CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to Feb. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Intrexon Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02398 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg signed
on a stipulation and order continuing the hearing on Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  The hearing previously set for Feb. 16, 2017,
has been continued to Feb. 23 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th
Floor, San Francisco.

Intrexon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "In May 2016, two
purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v.
Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et
al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016 (the "Class Period"). In
July 2016, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a
lead plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint names as
defendants us and certain of our current and former officers (the
"Defendants"). It alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements during the
Class Period with respect to our business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs' claims are based upon
allegations in a report published in April 2016 on the Seeking
Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. We
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case."

Intrexon Corporation ("Intrexon"), a Virginia corporation, forms
collaborations to create biologically based products and processes
using synthetic biology. Intrexon's primary domestic operations
are in California, Florida, Maryland, and Virginia, and its
primary international operations are in Belgium and Hungary. There
have been no commercialized products derived from Intrexon's
collaborations to date.


J.G. WENTWORTH: Still Defending Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in the District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against
the Company and various subsidiaries, which was removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, and later transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division;
Case No.: 1:14-cv-09188. Based on amendments to the Illinois
Structured Settlement Protection Act providing that where the
terms of the structured settlement agreements prohibit sale,
assignment, or encumbrance of such payment rights, a court is not
precluded from hearing an application for transfer of the payment
rights and ruling on the merits of such application, and a
declaration that the amendment was "declarative of existing law",
we believe that the original ruling in Illinois which commenced
the continuing Illinois proceedings was not consistent with
precedent and existing law, and we filed updates with the court
accordingly.

The Company said, "On July 27, 2016, the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.  The court dismissed with
prejudice any claims based on allegations that the transfer
approval orders were void.  The court held that Illinois courts
that approved the original transfers had jurisdiction to approve
the transfers and/or claims based on those orders being void ab
initio were dismissed, as well as claims based on allegations that
the venue was improper for the approval petitions or that the
disclosures were inadequate.  The court held that anti-assignment
provisions in the original settlement agreements can be waived,
but because the plaintiffs did not plead that they waived the
anti-assignment clauses, the motion to dismiss those claims were
denied.  The court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims
under RICO because plaintiffs failed to allege two predicate acts
as to each defendants.  The court also dismissed claims against
entities that were not in existence at the time of the transfers.
The court dismissed with prejudice claims for unjust enrichment
and joint enterprise. The court denied the motion to dismiss the
claims based on a breach of fiduciary duty, parts of the
conversion claims and the defense of statute of limitations
because plaintiffs' complaint stated a claim."

"The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a third amended
complaint by September 2, 2016 consistent with the order and set a
status hearing for September 21, 2016.  The plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint on September 2, 2016, which dropped
certain of the claims and now asserts claims only for breach of
fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, civil
conspiracy, and conversion. At the September 21, 2016 conference,
the parties discussed next steps in the matter but could not reach
agreement. The court indicated that it would address schedule,
discovery issues and arbitration requests at a subsequent status
conference. The defendants continue to believe that some of the
plaintiffs' claims are time-barred and all claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend these claims on a number of
factual and legal grounds.

J.G. Wentworth is a diversified financial services company that
specializes in providing solutions to consumers in need of cash.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Compensation Announced For Plaintiffs in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rydell at Foxbaltimore.com reports that more than 8,000 women
who filed a class action lawsuit against Johns Hopkins Hospital,
where the late Dr. Nikita Levy practiced, will receive
compensation of between $1,700 and $26,000.

Levy committed suicide after being accused of secretly videotaping
his female patients.

The $190 million lawsuit was filed more than two years ago.
Retired Maryland Court of Appeals Judge Irma Raker, who is claims
adjudicator in the case.

"We understand that everybody would like their money as soon as
possible."

Judge Raker says letters are being mailed to all of the plaintiffs
informing them of the compensation they are scheduled to receive.
All plaintiffs still have 30 days to formally appeal that amount.
Judge Raker says "The money will be distributed as soon as any
reconsideration or appeals have been resolved."

But Raker admits that because of the lengthy appeals process, it
could be several months before all the victims will be
compensated.

Judge Raker says "We considered each person's experience with Dr.
Levy, the duration of the treatment and the inappropriate comments
or inappropriate touching."

One of the victims contacted by Fox 45, who wanted to remain
anonymous, says she is extremely upset by the small amount of
compensation and says more money should be set aside to pay for
psychological counseling for the women.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Securities Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
Juno and our chief executive officer, Hans Bishop, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington under
the following captions: Goce Veljanoski, etc. v. Juno
Therapeutics, et al., No. 2:16-CV-01069 on July 12, 2016 (the
"Veljanoski Complaint") and Jiayi Wan, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics,
et al., No. 2:16-CV-01083 on July 13, 2016 (the "Wan Complaint").
On September 7, 2016, an additional putative securities class
action complaint was filed against Juno, Mr. Bishop, and our chief
financial officer, Steve Harr, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under the caption Liberata
Paradisco, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics, et al., No. 2:16-CV-01425
(the "Paradisco Complaint").

The putative class in both the Veljanoski and the Wan Complaints
is composed of all purchasers of the Company's securities between
June 4, 2016 and July 7, 2016, inclusive. The putative class in
the Paradisco Complaint is composed of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 9, 2016 and July 7, 2016,
inclusive. The complaints generally allege material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
patient deaths in the Company's Phase II clinical trial of
JCAR015, violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants.
All of the complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed
amount.

On October 7, 2016, the complaints were consolidated into a single
action titled "In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc." On October 19, 2016,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. The Company has not recorded
any liability as of September 30, 2016 since any potential loss is
not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature
of the proceedings.

Juno is building a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company
focused on re-engaging the body's immune system to revolutionize
the treatment of cancer.


KMART CORP: Should've Paid OT, Former Assistant Manager Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGowan reports that Kmart Corp. violated federal and state
law by not paying overtime to assistant managers who worked more
than 40 hours a week, according to a federal district court
lawsuit in Chicago (Roselan v. Kmart Corp., N.D. Ill., No. 16-
11667, complaint filed 12/28/16).

Lawsuits against retailers seeking overtime pay for salaried
employees who are called managers or assistant managers are common
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws.

Kmart earlier this year settled for $3.8 million a separate FLSA
lawsuit that covered about 425 assistant managers. The current
lawsuit, filed Dec. 28, seeks relief for a nationwide class of
current and former assistant store managers.

                   Statutory Exemption at Issue

Retailers generally contend that employees who are called managers
or assistant managers fall under the FLSA's "white collar"
exemption to overtime pay.

But the employees argue that despite their job titles, they lack
managerial authority and their job duties don't differ much from
those of hourly employees who are entitled to overtime pay.

The Labor Department issued a final rule in May that would require
employers to pay overtime to any employee whose salary is less
than $47,892 a year. The FLSA's white collar exemption would only
apply to managers whose annual salary exceeds that amount, the
department said.

But a federal district court in Texas blocked the new rule from
taking effect while a lawsuit challenging the DOL's test is
pending. That means a manager or assistant manager earning at
least $23,660 a year still can be denied overtime pay.

                 Kmart Aims to Limit Costs, Suit Says

In the current lawsuit, Kelliann Roselan, a former Kmart assistant
manager in New York, seeks relief for current and former store
assistants who worked for the retailer anywhere in the U.S. during
the past three years.

Kmart didn't pay assistant managers for overtime even though their
job duties don't qualify them for the FLSA exemption, Roselan
alleges. The retailer willfully denied overtime pay to the store
assistants to minimize its labor costs, she said.

Kmart scheduled Roselan to work 48 hours a week, but she actually
worked 60 to 65 hours each week she was scheduled for five shifts,
she said. The company paid assistant managers no overtime for
their hours in excess of 40 a week, she said.

Roselan seeks to pursue a class action under the New York Labor
Law as well as an FLSA collective action.

A spokesman for Sears Holdings Corp., which owns Kmart, said the
company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Attorneys representing Roselan weren't available for comment Dec.
29.

Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Werman Salas PC, Hepworth Gershbaum &
Roth PLLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Winebrake & Santillo LLC
and Migliaccio & Rathod LLP represent Roselan. No attorney has yet
entered an appearance for Kmart.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Securities Suit in San Mateo Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a consolidated securities class actions in San
Mateo County.

During the first nine months of 2016, five putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed
in California Superior Court, San Mateo County, naming as
defendants the Company, current and former directors, certain
officers, and the underwriters in the December 2014 initial public
offering (the IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a
single action (Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re
LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300.

In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated
Complaint ("FACC") alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) based on
allegedly false and misleading statements in the IPO registration
statement and prospectus. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO registration
statement and prospectus, and seek unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Defendants demurred to the FACC, and in September 2016, the Court
overruled those demurrers with respect to the Section 11 and 15
claims, and sustained the demurrers with leave to amend as the
Section 12(a)(2) claim. The Court has not yet set a date for
plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.
The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions
(entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Both actions asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and one of them asserted claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act similar to those alleged in the
Consolidated State Court Action.

In mid-August 2016, the two actions were consolidated into a
single action. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs' deadline
to file a consolidated complaint was December 9, 2016. The Company
believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Lending Club is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and
investors.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending
------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis in the federal
consumer class action is pending.

The Company said, "In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed in federal court in New York, alleging that persons
received loans, through the Company's platform, that exceeded
states' usury limits in violation of state usury and consumer
protection laws, and the federal RICO statute. The defendants, in
addition to the Company, are WebBank, Steel Partners Holdings,
L.P. and the Lending Club Members Trust. The Company has agreed to
indemnify WebBank and Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. against
certain liabilities in connection with this matter. The plaintiff
seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis, which is now pending. The Company believes that
the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
defend this matter vigorously.

Lending Club is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and
investors.


LIFELOCK INC: Appeal Briefs Due in January through March 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that appellate briefs
are due on various dates in January through March 2017.

The Company said, "On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle
and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action
lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. A second amended complaint was
filed on November 4, 2015 on behalf of four plaintiffs who alleged
that we engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in
connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of Contract, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act."

"Under the terms of the FTC settlement, $100 million, was paid in
December 2015 and was placed into the registry of the court
overseeing the FTC Contempt Action, $68 million of which was
authorized to be distributed to fund the consumer redress
contemplated by the Ebarle Class Action settlement. Those funds
have been transferred to the supervision of the court overseeing
the Ebarle Class Action Settlement.

"On September 20, 2016, the court overseeing the Ebarle Class
Action entered judgment and an order granting plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement,
awarding plaintiffs' counsel $10.2 million in fees and costs and
awarding each of the four plaintiffs $2,000 as a service award,
these amounts were previously expensed in the third quarter of
2015.

"Beginning on October 11, 2016, the Court-appointed settlement
administrator distributed settlement checks to settlement class
members using the $68 million transferred in February 2016 to the
court-appointed settlement administrator from the court's registry
in the FTC Contempt Action. The remaining $32 million of the
settlement remains in the registry of the Arizona court. In
addition, we have $3.0 million accrued for a potential settlement
with states attorneys general for related claims.

"Appeals of the final approval order and judgment were filed by
six objectors prior to the filing deadline and are pending in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals do not impact the
timing of the payment of settlement checks to settlement class
members or payment of the attorneys' fees, costs and service
awards to plaintiffs.

"A mediation assessment conference was scheduled with the Court of
Appeals for November 9, 2016, in connection with the initial
appeal filed, and the appeal briefs are currently due on various
dates in January through March 2017. However, the parties have
agreed to consolidate the appeals which is likely to have an
impact on the current schedule."


LIFELOCK INC: April 10 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is set for April 10, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before Judge
Susan R Bolton as to the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in the case, Avila v. LifeLock Incorporated
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01398 (D. Ariz.).

LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that "On July 22, 2015,
Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking to represent a
class of persons who acquired our securities from July 30, 2014 to
July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona. His
complaint alleged that Todd Davis, Christopher Power, and we
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose
material facts about our business, operations, and prospects,
including with regard to our information security program,
advertising, recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order.
The complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs."

"On September 21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma
Police Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson,
and their respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be
appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class
action.

"On October 9, 2015, the Court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On December 10, 2015 lead
plaintiffs filed a substantively similar amended complaint. Lead
plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act on January 21, 2016.

"On February 8, 2016, we, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power,
opposed that motion and on April 22, 2016, the Court denied lead
plaintiffs' motion. We, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on January 29, 2016.

"On August 3, 2016 the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
later permitted lead plaintiffs until September 23, 2016 to seek
leave to amend their complaint. On September 23, 2016, lead
plaintiffs moved for leave to file a proposed Second Amended
Complaint, which we did not oppose.

"On October 13, 2016, the Court granted lead plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.  On October 14,
2016, lead plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, which is
substantively similar to the amended complaint but adds our
President, Hilary Schneider, as a named defendant.

On December 16, 2016, the Company, along with Ms. Schneider and
Messrs. Davis and Power moved to dismiss the Second Amend
Complaint.

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Appeal Not Yet Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that oral argument on
the appeal related to the case, In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities
Litigation, has not been set by the Ninth Circuit.

On March 3, 2014, and March 10, 2014, two securities class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, against the Company, Todd Davis and
Christopher Power. On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the
complaints into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc.
Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

The Company said, "On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed
the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the Consolidated
Amended Complaint), seeking to represent a class of persons who
acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014,
inclusive (the Class Period). The Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleged that we, along with Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Ms.
Schneider, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, by making materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding
certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies,
including with regard to certain of our services, our data
security program, and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result,
certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period
and certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis,
and Mr. Power during the Class Period, were false and misleading.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On December 17, 2014, the court granted our and the other
defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, giving the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to
amend. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed his Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint which contained similar
allegations, but no longer named Ms. Schneider as a defendant.

"On July 21, 2015, the court granted our and the other defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint,
without leave to amend, and entered judgment in our favor. On
August 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff along with another
stockholder, City of Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Fund, moved to vacate the judgment on the
grounds that the FTC's July 21, 2015 motion seeking to hold us in
contempt of the FTC Order constituted surprise and newly
discovered evidence. Plaintiffs also sought permission to file a
Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.

"We, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power opposed plaintiffs' motion. On
September 18, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate
the July 21, 2015 judgment and plaintiffs' request to file another
complaint.

"On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs appeal from the
lower court's July 21, 2015 order dismissing the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint and entering judgment in our favor,
and the court's September 18, 2015 order denying plaintiffs'
motion to vacate that judgment. Briefing of the appeal has been
completed, but oral argument on the appeal has not been set by the
Ninth Circuit."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LM FUNDING: Judge Certifies Deceptive Trade Practice Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margie Manning, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports
that while LM Funding America Inc.'s stock price has seen a steady
decline since the company went public in October 2015, the stock
nosedived after a difficult third quarter in 2016.

LM Funding America, a specialty finance company that provides
funding for community associations, saw its stock fall from $8.50
a share on Jan. 4 to $4.10 a share on Dec. 23, a 51.8 percent
decline in price.  It was the second-largest stock price drop
among Tampa Bay companies in 2016.

LM Funding America, headquartered on Harbour Island, helps
homeowners associations collect delinquent accounts. Its financial
products are most attractive when delinquency rates are high,
Bruce Rodgers, chairman and CEO, said during a third quarter
earnings conference call.  But 3Q 2016 was a slow quarter for real
estate transactions in the company's target markets, which
resulted in light numbers, Mr. Rodgers said.

LM Funding reported a net loss of $914,180 on revenue of just over
$1 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, and a net loss of
$1.8 million on revenue of $4 million for the first nine months of
2016.

In September, the company unveiled a cost-cutting plan to reduce
expenses by about $2 million a year, by reducing non-sales related
back office personnel and wages, and trimming the salaries of five
executive officers, representing a 30 percent decrease to overall
executive management salaries, a filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission said.  Mr. Rodgers said that initiative
should have a meaningful impact on operations in 4Q 2016 and
beyond.

The company also has had higher expenses related to increased
legal activity, said Steve Weclew, chief financial officer.

It faces two lawsuits -- one pending in federal court that alleges
LM Funding directed a related company to violate provisions of a
Florida law on trade practices, and another in circuit court in
Miami-Dade County that makes similar deceptive trade practice
allegations.  LM Funding said both cases are without merit, but a
judge in the Miami-Dade case recently certified it as a class
action lawsuit, the Tampa Bay Times reported.


MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Extra Value Meal Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman who claimed she overpaid for her sausage burrito meal at a
McDonald's restaurant in The Loop has become the second plaintiff
asking Cook County courts to make McDonald's and a local
McDonald's franchisee pay for charging a few cents more the meal
as a bundled "Extra Value Meal," rather than a la carte.

On Dec. 22, plaintiff Kelly Killeen filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against Oak Brook-based McDonald's and local
franchise restaurant operator Salabad LLC, a company that operates
McDonald's restaurant No. 6491 at Randolph and Dearborn streets in
Chicago.

Ms. Killeen is represented in the action by attorney Samuel
Shelist, of Shelist Law Firm, and by JS Law.  Both firms are in
Chicago.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Killeen alleges McDonald's allows certain
franchise restaurant operators to charge too much for "Extra Value
Meals" -- which typically include a sandwich, drink and either
French fries or a hashbrown patty -- charging customers a few
cents more for the "meal" than they would pay if they ordered the
items separately.  This, the lawsuit alleged, means McDonald's and
its franchisees have violated Illinois law, as the company
advertises the bundled meals as a "value," particularly when
compared to ordering a la carte.

In this case, Ms. Killeen said she had ordered a sausage burrito
meal at the downtown Chicago McDonald's location and was charged
$5.08.  If the items had been ordered separately, Ms. Killeen
argued she would have paid only $4.97.

The lawsuit alleged the overcharge represents false advertising.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to expand the lawsuit to
potentially include hundreds or even thousands of other customers
who may have purchased meals at the downtown Chicago restaurant or
at any McDonald's restaurant anywhere else in Illinois, and who
similarly may have paid more for the Extra Value Meal than
ordering the items separately at the posted menu prices.

They have requested actual and tripled damages, plus unspecified
punitive damages and attorney fees.

The lawsuit is the second such class action filed in Cook County
courts over McDonald's meal pricing practices in December.

On Dec. 13, plaintiff James Gertie, of Des Plaines, through his
lawyers at the firm of Markoff Leinberger LLC, of Chicago, filed
suit against McDonald's franchisee Karis Management Company, which
operates McDonald's restaurants in suburban Des Plaines and Niles,
alleging the company should be ordered to pay for charging 41
cents too much for a two cheeseburger Extra Value Meal.


MEDTRONIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit Over Infuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Medtronic was
dealt a legal setback on Dec. 28 when a federal appeals court
reinstated litigation from investment funds claiming that the
medical device company misled investors and doctors by concealing
known risks from the controversial Infuse bone graft product.

Infuse has been used in more than 1 million surgeries worldwide to
stimulate bone growth, usually in a procedure in which a spine
surgeon fuses two or more vertebrae in a patient's back to
alleviate pain from degenerative disc disease.  Infuse is supposed
to make the fusion happen more reliably and with less pain, but
company-sponsored studies did not disclose risks that independent
studies later reported.

Three investment funds, including lead plaintiff West Virginia
Pipe Trades Health & Welfare fund, are accusing Medtronic of
securities fraud for allegedly taking part in a scheme to conceal
Infuse's safety risks and mislead investors about future Infuse
sales.  In 2015 Minnesota's chief federal judge, John Tunheim,
threw out the case on procedural grounds.

On Dec. 28, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in St. Louis unanimously overturned the Minnesota ruling
and sent the case back to federal trial court in Minnesota.
Medtronic moved its legal address to Ireland in 2015, but has
retained corporate offices in the state.

Medtronic said in a statement that it believes the shareholder
litigation is without merit, but lawyers for the groups suing
Medtronic cheered the decision.

"What it means is that the case will get back onto the track that
it was before it was dismissed.  We were taking discovery, we had
filed a motion for class certification.  The litigation will
continue toward an eventual trial unless there is some other event
that resolves it," said Shawn Williams, an attorney with the
California-based law firm heading up the plaintiffs' case.

Mr. Williams' firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, represented the
California pension fund that served as lead plaintiff in class
action shareholder litigation against Minnetonka-based
UnitedHealth Group that ultimately led to settlements of more than
$925 million in 2008.

When asked about a possible settlement in the Medtronic matter,
neither Mr. Williams nor a Medtronic spokesman said one was
likely.

"We haven't discussed settlement with them at all," Mr. Williams
said.

A statement from Medtronic reaffirmed the device maker's
commitment to winning the case in court.

"We're disappointed with the decision, but continue to believe the
claims in this case are without merit," a company spokesman said
via e-mail.  "The plaintiffs are still a long way from proving
liability in this case, and we are prepared to defend ourselves in
court."

The three plaintiffs in the case are the West Virginia pipe
fitters' union health and welfare fund, a Germany-based asset
manager called Union Asset Management Holding AG, and the State of
Hawaii Employees' Retirement System.

In a similar-but-unrelated case, Medtronic learned earlier in
December that it will likely have to go to trial in the first of
thousands of patients' personal injury lawsuits stemming from use
of Infuse.

A state appeals court judge in St. Louis ruled Dec. 8 ruled that
plaintiff Trisha Keim's allegations that Medtronic fraudulently
marketed Infuse should go to trial.  Medtronic denies any
liability in the patients' cases, and has moved to settle
thousands of the 6,000 injury claims pending against it over
Infuse.


MICHIGAN: UIA Software Incorrectly Snares Thousands
---------------------------------------------------
Jordan Travis at Record Eagle reports that the software once used
by Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency erroneously accused
tens of thousands of people who filed for benefits of intentional
misrepresentation, and one attorney fears there could be many
more.

The Michigan Integrated Data Automated System had a 93 percent
error rate in 22,427 supposed fraud cases it auto-adjudicated
between October 2013 and Aug. 4, 2015, and 20,965 of those were
later overturned. That's according to UIA data reported to U.S.
Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich.

Levin has asked the state to review the remaining 30,000 fraud
determinations made during the same time period, once in a letter
to Gov. Rick Snyder and again in December. In a statement he said
the review needs to go beyond a small subset of the cases, and
while a few thousand have been repaid after being incorrectly
fined, only a full audit will determine if the problem has been
solved.

"We have to make sure that everybody who was owed money is paid,"
he said.  "They have to make sure that the record is clarified in
every case where there was a false allegation of fraud. I mean, a
93 percent error rate is enormous."

A February 2016 Michigan Office of the Auditor General report
found a similar error rate among misrepresentation appeals made
from October 2013 to June 2015.

Attorney Jennifer Lord said she represents claimants who are suing
in state court after being financially harmed by MiDAS' "golden
touch." There's a separate class-action suit over the same issue
in federal court.

The software, once left in charge of rooting out fraud cases,
pinpointed people with discrepancies in their files and notified
them they were suspected of fraud, Lord said. Those notifications
went into online system portals with little or no other notice,
and gave claimants 10 days to respond.

Those who responded were given fact-finding questionnaires with
vague questions and predetermined responses, Lord said.

"For the question, 'Why did you apply for unemployment,' one of
the preselected answers is, 'Because I needed the money,'" she
said. "If they answered 'I needed the money,' it was an automatic
final determination of fraud."

An April 2016 state Office of the Auditor General report
criticized the agency's process for adjudicating intentional
misrepresentation issues between October 2013 and April 2015. The
UIA didn't get or factor in enough supporting information, asked
claimants only two questions when making a redetermination and
made them based on questions that didn't provide sufficient proof
of fraud.

Those who received a written redetermination of fraud weren't
given the reasons or supporting facts behind it, according to the
report.

Lord said those wrongfully netted by the software had to pay
staggering fines -- Michigan levies penalties equal to four times
what a claimant received in unemployment payments. And because the
system had access to the state and U.S. departments of treasury,
it could garnish peoples' wages, seize their tax refunds or both.

Fines the system collected totaled $56.9 million, money dumped
into a state fund that ballooned from $3.1 million in 2011 to
$68.8 million by September 2014, according to a fact sheet from
the U.S. House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee.

Lord pointed out Snyder could soon sign a bill reallocating $10
million of that money into the state's general fund. She believes
the money should be held in trust until the state is certain
everyone wrongfully accused and fined has been repaid.

"This is not the state's money, it is not taxpayer money, it is
money that was garnished from workers' wages," she said.

Lord said she wants those wrongfully accused to be repaid and to
ensure the state agency never repeats the mistake. The case is in
the state Court of Appeals and Lord wants it made into a class-
action lawsuit. It's a class that could be as large as 60,000
people who were potentially harmed by the system.

Levin's office stated the UIA made 53,633 fraud determinations
between October 2013 and August 2015.

The UIA changed its procedure in August 2015, said David Murray,
Department of Talent and Economic Development communications
director. In most situations fraud cases were overturned after the
agency received additional information.

"It was the computer system identifying people, and we changed
that because we wanted to have trained staffers have the final say
before letters go out to people," he said.

Michigan lawmakers have since passed a bill codifying the agency's
changes, Murray said. The agency has also addressed issues with
the notices it sends for suspected fraud, and will consider
Levin's request to review the roughly 30,000 other fraud cases.

"We realize that people come to the UIA for unemployment insurance
during a very difficult and stressful time in their lives, when
they've lost a job," he said. "We want to make sure that they get
the benefits that they're entitled to and that we can do that
quickly so they can get the assistance that they need as they look
to move forward."

The agency also must remain vigilant against fraud, Murray said.

Anyone who believes the agency wrongfully accused them of fraud
should go to their local UIA problem resolution office, Murray
said.

In Traverse City, it's at 1209 S. Garfield Ave. inside Northwest
Michigan Works.

As for the lawsuits, Murray said he couldn't speak about pending
litigation.

Levin said he'll keep track of the UIA's actions; he sits on the
House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the joint state-
federal agency.

"But it's primarily a state's responsibility to take the necessary
steps to come clean and to make sure that people aren't injured
because of the callousness of the state," he said.

Total Fraud Determinations, October 2013 -- August 2015: 53,633

Total Cases Reviewed by State: 22,427

Total Fraud Determinations Upheld: 1,462

Total Fraud Determinations Overturned: 20,965

Individuals requiring repayment: 2,571

Amount repaid to individuals: $5,431,821


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Tripp" Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled Tripp v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-12588-DLC to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

Plaintiff Bethany Tripp, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq.
          Justin M. Fabella, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          28 State Street, 24th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213-7000
          Facsimile: (617) 213-7001
          E-mail: aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com
                  jfabella@hinshawlaw.com


MISSOURI: Justice Center Files Suit vs. Dept. of Corrections
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Rivas of STL American reported that at 16, Eric Gray did
not have any stable adults in his life. Instead, he was exposed
daily to trauma and violence on the streets of St. Louis --
including active recruitment by the Bloods.

In March 2009, he got involved with an older woman, was in the
wrong place at the wrong time and ended up in a gang shootout. He
lived but another man died, and Gray received a sentence of seven
years for manslaughter and 25 years for armed criminal action. He
is currently serving that time at the Crossroads Correction Center
in Cameron, Mo.

On July 13, Gray was supposed to be considered for release by a
panel of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole. But after
being interviewed by the panel for a short period of time, Gray
received a single-page decision from the board stating he was
denied parole. The unsigned decision, dated August 4, went on to
state that Gray will not be considered for parole release again
for another five years.

On Dec. 28, MacArthur Justice Center in St. Louis filed a lawsuit
alleging that the Missouri Department of Corrections' parole
system violated Gray's constitutional rights and does so
continually with youthful offenders. In the suit, Gray asks the
Circuit Court of Cole County to declare unlawful the Missouri
Board of Probation and Parole's procedures and its decision to
deny his release.

Citing a series of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the suit
argues that inmates who were sentenced for crimes committed as
children require special consideration by the state's parole
board.

"Because youth are categorically less culpable than adults who
commit the same offenses, they must be given a meaningful
opportunity for release that focuses on their lack of maturity at
the time of the crime, extreme vulnerability to peer pressure, and
still developing moral compasses at the time they enter the
justice system," said Mae Quinn, director of the MacArthur Justice
Center, a public interest law firm that advocates for human rights
and social justice through litigation.

By depriving juvenile offenders of youth-focused assessments, the
lawsuit argues that the department's parole proceedings violate
due process requirements and the prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishments.

A department spokesman told The St. Louis American that the
department does not comment on pending litigation.

Gray's case

Before the incident, Gray "found himself involved in an
inappropriate relationship with an older predatory woman named
Sonia Whitlock," according to a lawsuit.

Whitlock -- who was in her twenties at the time -- became pregnant
with Gray's child, but she was also involved with men from the
opposing gang, the Crips. On March 20, 2009, Whitlock took Gray to
her grandmother's home in St. Louis city. Whitlock walked Gray
down a nearby street where he was confronted by men Whitlock knew
from her neighborhood, including Crip gang member Alvin Williams.
Words were exchanged, gunfire rang out, and ultimately Williams
was shot. Gray and Whitlock ran from the scene together; Williams
died that day.

Gray was, thereafter, arrested and charged with causing Williams'
death. Despite his youth, vulnerability and status as a child
statutory rape victim, Gray stood trial as an adult. After hearing
about the circumstances from Whitlock, the jury acquitted Gray of
first-degree-murder. He was convicted of the lesser charge of
manslaughter, for recklessly causing Williams' death and one count
of armed criminal action.

The lawsuit alleges that the parole made several procedural flaws
regarding Gray's parole hearing in July. Prior to the hearing,
Gray was only allowed to name one person as his representative;
therefore he couldn't name a witness and an attorney. Gray wasn't
granted due process because he was not allowed to review the
documents -- including any letters from the victim's family, notes
from prison staff and risk assessment instruments -- that went
before the parole board. These practices are unconstitutional, the
lawsuit argues.

"A one-sided, 15- or 20-minute, interrogation by board members and
prison staff without any real consideration of modern brain
science, adolescent development, or the impact of youthful traumas
on child defendants does not amount to a real chance at a second
chance," Quinn said.

Quinn said the Missouri parole board's practices have long gone
without challenge or scrutiny. Oftentimes, people like Gray don't
have access to a public defender because the public defender's
office does not have the resources to provide someone to represent
them during parole proceedings, she said.

"Unfortunately, unlike other states where attorneys are involved
to ensure proceedings are fair, Missouri fails to provide the
public defender system with sufficient funds to cover parole
release or violation hearings," Quinn said. "Because problematic
practices well-known to Missouri policymakers have gone largely
unchecked for decades, we feel the need to serve as a watchdog on
these issues."

This is the third lawsuit filed by the MacArthur Center in the
last two months, taking aim at Missouri's prisons. The most recent
prior complaint, a class action filed in federal court in
collaboration with the ACLU, seeks to force the department to
provide appropriate treatment to inmates suffering from Hepatitis
C. That case potentially impacts thousands of Missouri prisoners.

"The MDOC system is broken," said Amy Breihan, the MacArthur staff
attorney spearheading the group's efforts to fight for meaningful
hepatitis treatment. "We see this in news reports about how it
treats its own employees. And we see it in how the department
treats (or doesn't treat) those in its care. Our lawsuits reflect
the need for a fundamental cultural shift."

Quinn noted that the current director of the Missouri Department
of Corrections, George Lombardi, tendered his resignation this
month.

"That followed the center's two prior court filings and other
emerging legal controversies involving the department, including
accounts of a hostile and sometimes violent work environment where
whistleblowers who call for change face retaliation," she said.

In August, the national Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice
Center opened an office in St. Louis. Quinn, most recently the
director of the Juvenile Law and Justice Clinic and a tenured
professor at Washington University School of Law, was named
director of the new office.

Since its 1985 founding in Chicago by the family of J. Roderick
MacArthur, the MacArthur Justice Center has worked to bring police
misconduct to the public's attention and helped wrongfully
convicted men and women win multimillion dollar verdicts and
settlements as compensation for the time they were imprisoned.

"This region has recently received national and international
attention -- and scorn -- because of problematic court,
incarceration, and policing practices, including the shooting
death of unarmed Michael Brown by Ferguson law enforcement," said
Locke E. Bowman, Executive Director of the MacArthur Justice
Center, which is based at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in
Chicago. "St. Louis was an obvious choice for our newest
initiative."


MONAKER GROUP: Responds to Securities Class Suit Filed in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monaker Group (the "Company"), a travel and technology Company
focused on the alternative lodging rental (ALR) market, on
Dec. 29 responded to a report that a class action has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against Monaker Group alleging violations of federal
securities laws Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is April 6, 2012 through June
23, 2016.

"The action claims that Monaker supported RealBiz Media Group, to
the detriment of Monaker's shareholders, without fully disclosing
the support provided to RealBiz Media Group.  Monaker Group
believes that this action is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action."


MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $16MM Related to Modafinil Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has accrued
approximately $16.0 million at September 30, related to the
settlement with putative indirect purchasers in the Modafinil
antitrust litigation.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to modafinil. Discovery
has closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade
(and denied the corresponding plaintiffs' motion).

On January 28, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants'
summary judgment motions based on factors identified in the
Supreme Court's Actavis decision.

In an order of June 1, 2015, vacated and reissued on June 11,
2015, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed a petition for leave to appeal the certification decision,
which was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on
December 21, 2015.

On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On October 9, 2015, the Third Circuit granted defendants' petition
for leave to appeal the class certification decision.

On October 16, 2015, defendants filed a motion to stay the
liability trial, which had been set to begin on February 2, 2016,
with the District Court pending the appeal of the decision to
certify the direct purchaser class; this motion was denied on
December 17, 2015.

On December 17, 2015, the District Court approved the form and
manner of notice to the certified class of direct purchasers; the
notice was subsequently issued to the class.

On December 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to stay with
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which was granted on
January 25, 2016; the trial is now stayed and the case has been
placed in suspense. The appeal was fully briefed on April 28,
2016. Oral arguments on the appeal took place on July 12, 2016.

On September 13, 2016, the Third Circuit reversed the district
court's certification order and remanded for further proceedings.

On October 14, 2016 direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition
seeking rehearing. On October 31, 2016 the petition seeking
rehearing was denied.

On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with
the putative indirect purchasers, and on November 20, 2015, Mylan
entered into a settlement agreement with the putative indirect
purchasers. Plaintiffs have not yet moved for preliminary approval
of that settlement.

At September 30, 2016, the Company has accrued approximately $16.0
million related to this settlement.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: Bid to Dismiss Case Over Pioglitazone Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that briefing on Defendants'
motion to dismiss the putative direct purchaser class' amended
complaint in the Pioglitazone litigation has been completed.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014.

Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on October 10, 2014. Two additional complaints
were subsequently filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent
classes of direct purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and
Actoplus Met(R). On September 23, 2015, the District Court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers amended
complaints with prejudice. The indirect purchasers filed a notice
of appeal on October 22, 2015; however they have since abandoned
and dismissed their appeal of the District Court's dismissal of
claims asserted against Mylan. The putative direct purchaser class
filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2016. Defendants' motion
to dismiss was filed on January 28, 2016 and the briefing has been
completed.

The case has been stayed pending the resolution of the indirect
purchasers' appeal against the defendants remaining in that case.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Federal Securities Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending
against the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Federal Securities Litigation.

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their directors and
officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the
"defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers of securities
of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. The complaints allege that
defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of
purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities
laws, in connection with disclosures relating to Mylan N.V. and
Mylan Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a
non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate
Program. The complaints seek damages, as well as the plaintiffs'
fees and costs.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Securities Suit in Israel Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending
against the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Securities litigation in
Israel.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders, against Mylan
N.V. and four of its officers (collectively, for purposes of this
paragraph, the "defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court
(Economic Division). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly
material fact in Mylan N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange regarding Mylan N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, in
violation of both U.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli
Companies Law and the Israeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks
damages, among other remedies. We believe that the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: Defending Against EpiPen Auto-Injector Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending
against the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Civil Litigation.

Beginning in August 2016, Mylan Specialty L.P. and other Mylan-
affiliated entities have been named as defendants in certain
putative class action lawsuits relating to the pricing and/or
marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in these
suits assert violations of various state consumer protection laws,
as well as common law claims, including claims for unjust
enrichment, restitution, disgorgement and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs' claims include purported
challenges to the prices charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector
and/or the marketing of the product in packages containing two
auto-injectors.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces 16 Digoxin Price-Fixing Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending
against 16 class action lawsuits related to price-fixing of
Doxycycline and Digoxin products.

Beginning in March 2016, sixteen putative class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one filed in the District of
Rhode Island by indirect purchasers against Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers,
alleging conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of certain Doxycycline and Digoxin products and to allocate
markets and customers for those products. In addition, three
putative class action complaints have been filed in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania by direct purchasers against Mylan and
other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has established an MDL in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, where the cases have been consolidated.
Mylan and its subsidiary intend to deny liability and to defend
these actions vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces Pravastatin Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending
against 16 class action lawsuits related to price-fixing of
Pravastatin products.

On September 21, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by indirect purchasers against Mylan Inc. and other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging conspiracies to fix,
maintain, and/or stabilize the price of certain Pravastatin
products. Mylan intends to deny liability and to defend this
action vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


NEW YORK: Bill Requiring State to Pay Indigent Defense Vetoed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Felder, writing for JURIST, reports that NY Governor
Andrew Cuomo on Dec. 31 vetoed a bill that would require the state
to pay for indigent representation when counties were unable.  The
bill was passed six months ago with bipartisan support, though the
lawsuit giving rise to the issue was settled approximately 2 years
ago.  After weeks of negotiation Gov. Cuomo vetoed the bill, with
a spokesperson stating that "[u]nfortunately, an agreement was
unable to be reached and the Legislature was committed to a flawed
bill that placed an $800 million burden on taxpayers -- $600
million of which was unnecessary -- with no way to pay for it and
no plan to make one."  Gov. Cuomo assured that it would be
"revisited" in the upcoming legislation cycle.

This is not the first time that the rights of indigent defendants
have suffered due to costs.  Last January, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Louisiana filed a class
action lawsuit against the New Orleans Public Defenders Office and
the Louisiana Public Defender Board due to the lack of available
public defenders for individuals with no access to an attorney.
The ACLU claimed that as a result of the lack of state funding for
public defenders, individuals are forced to wait months in jail
without counsel or accept bail and plea negotiations which can
have irreparable effects on their case. This was not the first
time the New Orleans County Public Defender's Office had struggled
to adequately provide enough public defenders, who represent close
to 80 percent of criminal defendants in New Orleans.  Due to
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 31 of the office's 39 public defenders
were laid off and the annual budget was dropped from $2.5 million
to $500,000.  The financing system was accused of being
unconstitutional because it relied heavily on surcharges from
traffic tickets, which were abandoned since Hurricane Katrina, and
forced poor people to pay for the system.  Many cases involving
public defenders were suspended and a petition was granted to free
a prisoner facing serious charges because the suspect lacked
counsel.  Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr. launched
an investigation in 2006 into the dire finances of the state's
indigent defense system.


NEW YORK REIT: "Jacobs" Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
New York REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Irene Jacobs and
Marvin Jacobs have discontinued their class action lawsuit.

During June 2016, Irene Jacobs and Marvin Jacobs filed a class
action complaint (the "Jacobs Complaint") on behalf of public
stockholders of the Company against the Company, the OP, Michael
Happel, the Company's chief executive officer, and its board of
directors. The Jacobs Complaint was originally filed in New York
Supreme Court, New York County on June 17, 2016, but the New York
action was discontinued and re-filed in Maryland Circuit Court on
July 12, 2016. The Jacobs Complaint seeks to enjoin the series of
transactions contemplated by the Master Combination Agreement (the
"JBG Combination Agreement") the Company entered into in May 2016
with JBG Properties, Inc. and JBG/Operating Partners, L.P
(collectively "JBG Management Entities"), and certain pooled
investment funds that are affiliates of the JBG Management
Entities (collectively with the JBG Management Entities and
certain affiliated entities, "JBG"). The Jacobs Complaint alleges,
among other things, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of the Company by
causing the Company to enter into the JBG Combination Agreement,
and that the Company, the OP and JBG knowingly assisted in those
alleged breaches.

On August 2, 2016, the Company and the OP entered into an
agreement with JBG to terminate the JBG Combination Agreement. On
September 2, 2016, following termination of the JBG Combination
Agreement, a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance of the Jacobs
Complaint was filed, concluding the matter.


NICOLET RESTAURANT: Court Relies on Spokeo to Dismiss FACTA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Conkle, Esq. -- brooke.conkle@troutmansanders.com -- and
Michael E. Lacy, Esq. -- michael.lacy@troutmansanders.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on
December 13, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the
dismissal of a proposed class action alleging that a restaurant
did not properly truncate credit card expiration dates on
receipts, finding the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.

The plaintiff, Jeremy Meyers, was given a copy of his receipt
after dining at Nicolet Restaurant of de Pere, a restaurant owned
by the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.  Mr. Meyers noticed
that the receipt did not truncate the expiration date of his
credit card, as required by the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA").


NORTH AMERICAN: Carnival Workers Sue Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports that a carnival
operator which has billed itself as "the world's largest traveling
outdoor amusement park," providing carnival services to 10 of the
50 largest fairs in North America, including the Illinois, Indiana
and Kentucky state fairs, is facing a class action wage complaint
from employees who allege violations of laws in five states.

Patrick Smith, Brenna Smith, Jeremiah Jones, Sierra Holcomb,
Michael Galvin, Joseph Dawson, Andries Van Der Walt, Annette
Stiles, Robert Hulett, Yvon Hanekom and Lauren Hanekom filed their
complaint Dec. 22 in Cook County Circuit Court, accusing Farmland,
Ind.-based North American Midway Entertainment-Astro Amusement of
violating wage and hour laws in Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin, as
well as common laws in Texas and Louisiana.

According to the complaint, NAME has, for more than a decade,
frequently required employees to work 55 or more hours each week
without paying overtime or "their agreed contract wages." Often,
workers got $6 or $7 per hour, including those in which they
exceeded 40 hours per week.

The employees who filed the complaint worked as ride operators,
ticket sellers, game operators, concession stand attendants and
foremen, some for as many as 11 years. They noted NAME, for a
decade, "routinely obtained labor through the H-2B temporary
foreign worker visa program." Under that process, employers file
temporary employment certification applications with the
Department of Labor. Such paperwork specifies wages and other
employment terms offered to workers, including a requirement to
meet federal prevailing wage standards for H-2B workers and to
offer equivalent terms to American citizen employees.

Smith, Van Der Walt and Hanekom are H-2B workers who came from
South Africa. All the employees named as plaintiffs said they
worked in several parts of the country, including stints at state
fairs in Illinois, Kansas and Texas, when they worked more than 70
hours a week. In some cases, the workers said they got the federal
prevailing wage, but no overtime pay, despite always working more
than 40 hours a week.

Other employees cited weekly pay figures, such as $375 a week in
2013, $450 per week in 2014 and $425 per week in 2015, despite
working at least 50 hours each week. Each employee stipulated NAME
never paid them for all the hours they worked, as they never paid
one and a half times the regular rate for any hours past 40 in a
single week.

The complaint said the alleged wage violations also constitute
breach of contract, including H-2B terms.

The class would include anyone who worked for NAME through Jan. 1,
2016 in the following states: at Illinois carnivals from as far
back as Jan. 1, 2007; in Texas from Jan. 1, 2013; in Louisiana and
Kansas from Jan. 1, 2014; and in Wisconsin from Jan. 1, 2015.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the
plaintiffs want back pay with a 2 percent interest penalty,
according to the relevant state laws.

Representing the plaintiffs, and serving as putative class
attorneys, are lawyers from the Chicago firm of Hughes Socol Piers
Resnick & Dym.


ORBIT CORP: Aggrieved Apartment Buyers File Representative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yogesh Sadhwani and Bapu Deedwania, writing for Mumbai Mirror,
report that aggrieved apartment buyers in the uber luxurious Orbit
Terraces project, in Lower Parel, have requested the High Court to
allow them to complete the construction of the project that has
been stuck since 2015.

Nine of the buyers, who are representing 50 other owners,
including noted architect Hafeez Contractor, have filed the rarely
used Representative Suit against the building's developer, Orbit
Corporation, and sought that the project be handed over to them.

The buyers have requested that the construction should be
supervised by the HC.  In case they are not allowed to take over
the construction, their plaint states that the money they paid to
the developer should be refunded along with 18% interest.

When it was launched in 2010, the property, which consists
entirely of luxury duplexes, was touted and sold as a potential
SoBo landmark by Orbit Corporation.  The construction of the 55-
storey building progressed steadily until 2014, but came to
grinding halt in 2015.  In September, Orbit Corporation's promoter
Pujit Aggarwal was arrested by the Mumbai Police for numerous
cases of cheating in a couple of his other projects.

A Representative Suit, which is akin to the class action suit
filed in western countries, is uncommon in India.  According to
the Civil Procedure Code, if there are numerous people having the
same interest in one suit, one or more of such person may sue, or
be sued on behalf of all persons interested with the permission of
the court.  Famous class action suits in the West include
Erin Brokovich's battle against Pacific Gas and Electric in 1993
(it was later made into a movie starring Julia Roberts), and the
1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement that forced cigarette
manufacturers in the US to, among other things, stop targeting
young smokers.

"It is amazing that the makers of the law envisaged such a remedy
more than 100 years ago. This rule is an exception to the general
rule that all persons interested should be party to the suit.
Basically, if there is a similar cause of action amongst a large
group, a few can come forward to file a suit for all the others as
well with the prior permission of the court. The other thing is
that it also does not harm the interest of anyone who does not
become a part of such a suit," advocate Vivek Shiralkar, who is
representing the buyers, told Mumbai Mirror.

The petition, filed earlier in December, states that most buyers
bought flats between 2010 and 2014.  While some of the deals were
registered with Registrar of Stamps, many other buyers were issued
allotment letters.

The plaint states that the buyers individually contacted office
bearers of Orbit on multiple occasions, but did not get any
response.

Uniting for a cause

With construction of tower stuck at the 40th floor, the buyers
came together under the banner of 'Orbit Flat Purchasers
Association (OFPA)', which has around 60 members. "The Plaintiffs
(buyers) and other purchasers started contacting each other and
decided to form a collective forum for approaching the Defendant
No.1(Orbit), as they were not responding to individual requests
and avoiding personal contacts with various flat purchasers," the
petition states.

"Some of the members of the Plaintiffs Association and whom they
are representing are living in tenanted and/or licensed premises.
They have not only put their hard earned money and lifetime
savings in the proposed construction of the said project, but have
also sought setoff in respect of capital gains, which they have
made while selling their other properties and which they have used
for purchasing the flats in the said project being done by the
Defendant No. 1(Orbit)," the plaint states.

Buyers left in a lurch

OFPA says that since the developers did not progress on
construction front and only gave the buyers verbal assurances,
they decided to carry out their independent investigations. They
claim that their investigations revealed that Orbit collected huge
sums from them for the flats and diverted the monies to other
projects. The association in this case have also made State Bank
of India and Union Bank of India as parties.  The two banks
extended loans to Orbit, which have now been defaulted.  Earlier
in 2016, the two banks took symbolic possession of the complex to
recover their dues totalling Rs 135 crores.  The buyers have
sought that banks should not be allowed to alienate, or sell any
part of the building to recover their dues.

The buyers say that they have also managed to lay their hands on
communication between Orbit and banks. The claim that in a letter
dated June 3, 2016, Orbit has written to the banks seeking a
settlement of dues.

"As per the said letter dated 3rd June 2016, total amount of
Rs.184.63 Crores is still required for completion of the said
project," the plaint states.

"The Defendant No.1 (Orbit) has not come with clean hands and with
any concrete plan and solution and except for giving bare and
empty assurances and promises, they have done nothing further in
the matter . . . The Plaintiffs (buyers) have made relentless
efforts for following up with the Defendant No.1 and their
representatives, but none of commitments and promises made by them
is met till date . . .," the plaint says.

Stepping into the shoes of the developer

According to Advocate Shiralkar, the suit is ambitious in nature,
but the buyers, he said, have full faith in the judiciary.
"Considering the situation at hand, we have gone with what is the
best possible remedy available under the law," he said.

When quizzed about the plaintiffs seeking to step into the shoes
of the developer to complete the project, he said, "Again, it's
the law that provides for it.  Under the MOFA (Maharashtra
Ownership Flats Act), it is a statutory obligation of the
promoter/developer to handover both conveyance and title of the
property and specifically that.  It is not the same as a simple
agreement of sale, or any other contract.  The prayer to seek such
a relief comes from there, to seek completion of the project, if
not by the developer then asking the courts to allow the buyers to
do the same and failing which asking the promoter developer to
return the amount," he said

Shiralkar explained that in their suit before Justice S J
Kathawalla, the plaintiffs have also pointed out the circulars
issued by Reserve Bank of India, which entail that even after
disbursement of a loan amount by a bank to a developer for a
project, the bank should monitor the progress of the project. The
matter will now come up for hearing on January 19.

What developer is saying

When Mumbai Mirror reached out to Orbit Corporation, their
spokesperson stated in an emailed response that "the work on Orbit
Terraces has been stalled for some time, and we are extending all
co-operation to the buyers for speedy completion of the project.
However, the matter is subjudice."


PALOS VERDES, CA: Security Measures to Be Enforced at Lunada Bay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Peleg, writing for Laist, reports that surfers at the famous
Lunada Bay in Palos Verdes Estates may be seeing a lot more law
enforcement patrol soon.  Park rangers from the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy, along with potential police surveillance
cameras, will keep an eye on the spot known to have violent,
territorial clashes between surfers.

A group known as the Lunada Bay Boys has threatened and
intimidated fellow surfers, and has illegally blocked public
access to the cove, for decades.  In the last year, a series of
civil, state, and federal suits has been brought against the group
to end their reign.

"The plaintiffs brought the lawsuits to open access to a beach
that was stolen 40 years ago by a bunch of trust-fund bullies,"
Victor Otten, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in a state
suit, said, notes the Los Angeles Times.  "The plaintiffs are
confident they will succeed in making Lunada Bay public again."
Reports have cited the gang assaulting unwelcomed beach-goers,
slashing tires, dumping beer on people, and pelting others with
dirt clods.

In 2014, a planned Martin Luther King Jr. Day event at the beach
was met by members of the Lunada Bay Boys dressed in black face
and Afro wigs. The Bay Boys alleged told the event organizer, "You
don't pay enough taxes to be here."

In March, a federal class-action suit was filed to require the
city of Palos Verdes Estates to investigate and prosecute the
alleged crimes.

But Jeff Kepley, the Palos Verdes Estates Police Chief, challenges
the beach's bad rap.

"I think there may be times when there are surfers down there that
might do something to dissuade a visitor and that would equate to
denying access to the coastal resource," Mr. Kepley said in
January, according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram.  "But there
are plenty of times when anyone can go down there and enjoy
themselves and nobody could care less."

City Manager Tony Dahlerbruch added that he hopes to implement the
proposed security measures shortly after January 1.
"We're looking to start as soon as we can."


PENNSYLVANIA: School Pensions Plan Might Recover Funds Lost
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Erdley at Triblive reports that Pennsylvania's school
pension fund will recover some of the losses it suffered in the
Great Recession after the settlement of a class-action suit
against Bank of America.

The Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System, or PSERs, has
$51 billion in assets and was the lead plaintiff in a 2011 lawsuit
against Bank of America. The suit alleged the financial
institution hid debt and misled investors about its position in
mortgage-backed securities between February 2009 and October 2010.

U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III, of the Southern
District of New York, this week approved a $335 million
settlement. The ruling ends nearly six years of litigation.

Attorneys for Bank of America did not return a call for comment.

PSERs spokeswoman Evelyn Williams said it is unclear how much the
pension fund will recover in the settlement.

"Final payouts to members of the class are still being
determined," Williams said.

Other large institutional investors that joined the suit included
the Arkansas Teacher Retirement fund, the Anchorage Fire and
Police Retirement fund and two trade union funds as well as asset
managers.

Williams said PSERs lost about $8 million on its Bank of America
holdings. But "calculated losses do not equate to recoverable
damages," she cautioned.

The pension fund, which represents more than a half million
retired and active school employees, pays out approximately $6
billion annually in benefits.

The value of the fund, which is underwritten through employee,
state and school contributions and investment returns, slipped
from $68 billion in 2007 to $47 billion in 2010.

As of June 30, 2015, the fund had $37.3 billion in unfunded
liabilities. Williams said a combination of losses during the
recession, as a series of unfunded benefit increases between 2001
and 2003 and more than a decade of underfunding by the state and
schools, contributed to the unfunded liability.


PORSCHE: Beige Interior Glare Lawsuit Settlement Reached
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood at Carcomplaints.com reports that Porsche beige
interior glare lawsuits will be settled after owners sued over
cars with beige interiors that allegedly reflect a dangerous glare
off the windshields.

Porsche and plaintiffs from different class-action lawsuits agreed
to settle the cases after fighting back and forth in the courts
since 2015.

One of the lawsuits was filed by Roy Jones and Alyce Rubinfeld,
who claim Luxor Beige, Sand Beige and other light-colored
dashboards create a blinding glare off the windshields that
creates a safety hazard when driving.

The lawsuit alleges Porsche knew the interiors caused problems but
refused to tell consumers about the glare, choosing instead to
tell drivers to wear sunglasses.

Porsche filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing any
windshield can reflect a glare from the dashboard if the sun is
shining and no owners ever reported they stopped driving their
cars because of a glare. The automaker also told the court none of
the plaintiffs suffered any injuries or loss from beige interiors
and the entire lawsuit was filed based on buyer's remorse.

Without evidence of a safety defect, Porsche told the court the
plaintiffs didn't have a case and none of the plaintiffs could
even provide dates for when they started having the alleged
problems. The automaker also told the judge that just because a
few people complained about glare from the interiors, it doesn't
mean Porsche hid a safety defect from the public.

After meeting earlier in 2016, all parties decided the best course
of action was to settle the cases and save money and headaches on
future litigation.

The proposed Porsche beige interior settlement includes all former
and current lessees and owners of 2007-2016 vehicles in the U.S.
equipped with colored dashboards including Cognac, Luxor Beige,
Natural Brown, Platinum Grey and Sand Beige.

The plaintiffs didn't exactly get what they wanted because owners
wanted Porsche to recall cars with beige interiors and to pay
"damages" to the plaintiffs. How Porsche was supposed to do this
is unknown.

Instead, the settlement agreement provides different reimbursement
amounts based on model years.

Former lessees and owners of 2007-2010 Porsche models qualify for
$50, owners and lessees of 2007-2010 models can receive $75 and
current owners and lessees of 2011-2016 Porsche vehicles can get
$175.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs will receive up to $790,000 plus
expenses.

The court still needs to give final approval to the settlement
agreement, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2017.

The Porsche beige interior glare lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of California Los Angeles County - Roy Jones et al
v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey - Chan v. Porsche Cars North
America Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC, the Law
Offices of Joseph R. Santoli, the Law Office of Robert L. Starr,
and the Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris PC.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jan. 23 Hearing on Discovery Protocol Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HsingChing Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00865 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andrew J. Guilford will
hold a hearing on Jan. 23, 2017, to consider a Motion to
Supplement the December 5, 2016 Scheduling Order and Establish an
Informal Discovery Dispute Protocol filed by Lead Plaintiff
Norfolk County Council, as Administering Authority of the Norfolk
Pension Fund.

Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "On June 3,
2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and
certain of our executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv-
00865-AG-JCG).  On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk
Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons
who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29,
2015.  The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of our
executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.

"On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard
oral argument on March 14, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court
denied our motion to dismiss.  We intend to vigorously defend this
matter."

Puma is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the
development and commercialization of innovative products to
enhance cancer care.


RESOLUTE FOREST: "Reynolds" Class Suit in Preliminary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
proposed class action lawsuit, Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest
Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and
Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan, is at a preliminary stage and no
class has been certified.

The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S.
OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare
eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare
Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan.
On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al
v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP
US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were
previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba,
South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama, mills, and their spouses
and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications
described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and
plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in
effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the
lawsuit."

"The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to defend the action. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.

"The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and
no class has been certified. Accordingly, we are not presently
able to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter or to
reasonably estimate the potential impact on our Consolidated
Financial Statements," the Company said.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Garrison, Esq.
      Scott Tift, Esq.
      Seth Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

          - and -

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Pittsburgh North Office
      12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
      Pittsburgh, PA 15215
      Tel: (412) 492-8797
      Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com

          - and -

      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 281-8400
      Email: pewing@fdpklaw.com
             jhurt@fdpklaw.com
             rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph P. Stuligross, Esq.
      ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL UNITED STEELWORKERS
      Five Gateway Center, Suite 807
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 562-2526
      Email: jstuligross@usw.org

Resolute Forest Products is a global leader in the forest products
industry with a diverse range of products, including market pulp,
tissue, wood products, newsprint and specialty papers, which are
marketed in close to 80 countries.


REX ENERGY: Plaintiff Appeal in "Cardinale" Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal by
plaintiff in the Cardinale case remains pending.

The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in
a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and
each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order
for payment and Company. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring
the rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases,
as well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees."

"We filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to the
plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various responsive
filings throughout the first quarter of 2012. In May 2012, the
trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with prejudice on the
grounds that there was no contract formed between us and the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal during the
second half of 2012. In May 2013, the Superior Court reversed the
decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the Billotte
case contained the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale
case. The Meeker case is not a class action, but the claims are
similar to those in Cardinale and the plaintiffs would be included
in a class under Cardinale and Billotte if one were certified.
These two additional lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons in
light of the dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency of
the appeal. Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases were
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale case.
When the Cardinale case was remanded, we agreed to consolidate the
Billotte and Cardinale cases; the cases have proceeded as
Cardinale. The Meeker case remains stayed, and has not been
consolidated.

"In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case.  In
July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class
certification in September 2015.

"In June 2016, we and the plaintiffs each presented our arguments
on the appeal before a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania
Superior Court.  To date, the court has not ruled on the appeal.
We expect to receive the court's ruling on the appeal in the
fourth quarter of 2016.

"We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At
this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses, if any."

Rex Energy Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is an
independent oil, natural gas liquid ("NGL") and natural gas
company with operations currently focused in the Appalachian
Basin.


ROTI MODERN: Sued Over Too Many Credit Card Digits on Receipts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Marotti, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that two
consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against Roti Modern
Mediterranean, claiming the chain prints too many digits of
customer credit card numbers on sales receipts, a practice they
say puts diners at risk for identity theft and credit card fraud.

The complaint, filed Dec. 16 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleges
that Roti is violating a federal law prohibiting companies from
printing more than the last five digits of a debit or credit card
on a sales receipt.  Roti allegedly printed the first six and last
four digits.

"Somebody would only have to figure out those other six digits to
have a full card," said Paul Markoff, partner at Markoff
Leinberger, the firm representing the plaintiffs in the case.

Roti is a fast-casual restaurant that serves Mediterranean food.
It operates 12 locations in Illinois, with one more set to open
soon, according to its website.

The two plaintiffs named in the case are Illinois residents Cooper
Lindner and Kim Smith, both of whom used Visa cards to make a
purchase at Roti in July.  Ms. Smith and Mr. Lindner's receipts
displayed 10 digits, according to court documents.

The information identity thieves are most interested in getting
their hands on are full, 16-digit credit card numbers, said
Jim Speta, a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker
School of Law.

It's unclear whether printing five digits would keep consumers
safer than printing six, for example, but the theory is "more
digits increase the risk of identity theft," he said.

Thieves can use the 10 credit card digits to persuade the consumer
to turn over more sensitive information, the complaint alleges.
It's also easier for them to guess six digits than the 11 that the
law states should be blocked out.

This is not the first iteration of the lawsuit.  Lindner and Smith
first filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of Northern
Illinois, Eastern Division, in July, bringing similar allegations
against Roti.

The Chicago-based restaurant chain moved to dismiss the case,
saying that the first six credit card digits are "the numeric
equivalent of the card's issuing bank," and that no harm came from
printing those digits.

Those numbers do relate to bank information, said Ed Haag,
president of Schaumburg-based consulting firm Undo Identity Theft,
but he said printing them should be a concern for banks and
consumers.

"It's one more hurdle (the banks) have to protect against because
it could give (identity thieves) some type of access," Mr. Haag
said.

Ultimately, Mr. Lindner and Ms. Smith filed documents to dismiss
the case in federal court.  The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in
another case that damage must have been done for the case to have
a standing in federal court.  Since neither Lindner nor Smith's
identities had been stolen, they decided to move the case to state
court, Mr. Markoff said.

The suit could represent more than 100 people, Mr. Markoff said.
The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class for the suit,
bar Roti from printing more than the last five digits of credit
cards on receipts, and require Roti to pay damages.

Roti CEO Carl Segal said in a statement that the plaintiffs'
claims still have no merit.

"There have been no allegations that anyone's credit card
information was ever compromised and Roti is not aware that
anything like that happened," he said.  "We will vigorously defend
this lawsuit."

Other companies that have been accused of violating the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act and printing too many numbers on
receipts include Costco and Burger King.


RYE GOLF: Settles Employees' Wage Class Action for $1 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Woyton, writing for Rye Patch, reports that a group of
former and current Rye Golf Club employees have settled a class-
action lawsuit to the tune of $1 million.

The lawsuit was filed over stolen wages and unpaid tips.

Employees had originally sought to recoup $4 million.


SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss PFOA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Carson, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that a
Vermont judge has denied Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics' motion
to dismiss or stay a class action lawsuit filed over PFOA
contamination.

The suit was filed in May by residents of Bennington and North
Bennington for $5 million in damages against Saint-Gobain, the
company believed by the state to be responsible for contaminating
private wells with the chemical, which was used for decades in the
production of the non-stick coating Teflon.  A memorandum filed in
July by Saint-Gobain's lawyers argued that the complaint brought
forward by North Bennington residents should be dismissed or
stayed because the company was challenging the state's advisory
standard for the man-made chemical.

Vermont has the lowest threshold for PFOA in the country, at a
concentration of 20 parts per trillion in water.  The federal
Environmental Protection Agency has set a threshold of 70 ppt. The
company has argued that the threshold was improperly or unfairly
set after the contamination was discovered in the local wells.

In his decision, Judge Geoffrey Crawford, of the Rutland District
Court, wrote in his decision that the plaintiffs' claims and class
designation do not hinge on the 20 ppt designation. Furthermore,
he wrote, "The final administrative rules regarding groundwater
and hazardous waste management have only just been issued.
Assuming that Saint-Gobain elects to challenge those final rules
in state court, the court process (including appeal to the Vermont
State Court) will likely take years.  Awaiting resolution of the
state administrative and appeals process would cause substantial
delay in this case.  Moreover, the benefit of abstaining in favor
of that process is marginal at best."

"We're glad that Judge Crawford has correctly decided to dismiss
the motion," said Attorney Patrick Bernal --
patrick@greenmtlaw.com -- of Woolmington, Campbell, Bernal & Bent,
one of four law firms representing the plaintiffs, "We viewed this
motion all along as a dilatory tactic, and our clients are eager
to get their case before a Vermont jury."


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Investment Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Deka Investment GmbH
et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-
cv-2129-K.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6,
2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned
Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the
Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the
Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas.  In
September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned
Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy
of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class
action complaint and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was
denied.

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016,
another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit).

Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaints in the
Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that the Company made
false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports
filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures,
in connection with the Company's change in its methodology for
estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such
allowance for prior periods in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek damages and other
relief. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into
the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as
Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-783.

On Dec. 20, Plaintiffs Cynthia A Parmelee and Kelly Baxley filed
an Amended Complaint with jury demand.


SEATTLE GENETICS: Rosen Law Investigating Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Seattle Genetics, Inc. resulting from allegations
that Seattle Genetics may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On December 27, 2016, Seattle Genetics announced that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration had placed a clinical hold or partial
clinical hold on several early stage trials of its experimental
cancer drug, vadastuximab talirine, to evaluate the potential risk
of hepatotoxicity. Seattle Genetics stated that six acute myeloid
leukemia patients had been identified with liver toxicity and that
four had died.

On this news, Seattle Genetics shares fell $9.95 per share or over
16% from its previous closing price to close at $52.36 on December
27, 2016.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Seattle Genetics investors. If you purchased
shares of Seattle Genetics on or before December 27, 2016, please
visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-
1020.html for more information. You may also 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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Baker" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the securities class action
lawsuit, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomsp√ędagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone,
and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary
public offerings.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed
contained materially false and misleading information in violation
of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not
knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the
time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and
the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice.

On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
class action complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), which, among
other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters
as defendants.  On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  On
October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve
theme parks within the United States.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Consumer Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal
in a consolidated consumer class action lawsuit remains pending.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.  Plaintiffs' claims
are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the
physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas,
resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket
purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with
intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class
members.  The complaint further alleges that the specific
misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,
but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the
class is determined (if certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against
the Company and its affiliates.  The first three actions were
filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015,
respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK
(the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al.
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the
"Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v.
SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne
Matter").

On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.  On May
7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along
with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in an action
captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 15: cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of
these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief
sought in the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were
consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a
First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015.
The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original
Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant
to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its
motion was granted on December 24, 2015.  The Court granted
dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the
portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the
CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all
California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the
Company.  The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of
the complaint.

On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC pursues the same causes of
action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted
above, was dismissed with prejudice.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25,
2016.

The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the entire SAC
with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13,
2016.  Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth
Circuit") on June 10, 2016.  On September 19, 2016, plaintiffs
filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit.  The Company's
response brief was due on November 18, 2016.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve
theme parks within the United States.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
remains pending, SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson
Matter").  The putative class consists of all consumers within
California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego.  On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint").
The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition
Law and California CLRA.  Plaintiffs' claims are based on their
allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living
conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in
confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted
material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members.  The First
Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.  Based on plaintiffs' definition of the
class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability
exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined
(if certification is granted at all).  On May 14, 2015, the
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC.

On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  On
September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The motion was fully
briefed.  On September 24, 2015, the district court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.  On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed.  On
October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for leave.  Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully
briefed.

On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied
in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the
case.  On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth
Circuit, which the Company opposed.  On April 7, 2016, the Ninth
Circuit denied both of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to
appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended
Complaint"), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make
various pleading adjustments.  The Company opposed the motion.

On August 1, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in
part the Company's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016, which they filed.

The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserts causes of action
based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law and California CLRA.  Essentially plaintiffs
allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company
about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to
purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases,
plush toys while in the parks.  The Company moved to dismiss this
on various grounds.

On November 7, 2016, the district court issued an order granting
in part, and denying in part, the Company's motion to dismiss. The
district court found the named plaintiff failed to allege reliance
on any specific statements so those claims, in their entirety,
have been dismissed.  In addition, the district court determined
that plaintiffs did not allege any misrepresentations made about
the plush toy purchases, which disposes of the CLRA claims based
on the toys.  The district court also found that certain
plaintiff's conversation with SeaWorld's trainers was not
"advertising," and dismissed the false advertising claim and
Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it.  What remains at this
point are a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the
purchase of tickets; a plaintiff's California Unfair Competition
Law and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of
plush toys; and a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law based on the purchase of plush toys.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve
theme parks within the United States.


SIENTRA INC: Settlement Reached in Stockholder Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a settlement has
been reached in the stockholder class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a
class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
lawsuit names the Company and certain of our officers as
defendants, or the Sientra Defendants, and alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  The plaintiff seeks damages and an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees."

"On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of
stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to
approve their selection on lead counsel.  On December 10, 2015,
the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and
approving their selection of lead counsel.

"On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated
with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on
September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter Defendants.

"On March 21, 2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to
Dismiss, the consolidated amended complaints. On April 20, 2016,
lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss,
and the Sientra Defendants and Underwriter Defendants filed
separate replies on May 5, 2016.

"On June 9, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Motions to Dismiss.  On July 14, 2016, the Sientra Defendants
moved the court to reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and grant the
Motions to Dismiss in full.

"On August 4, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion for reconsideration. On August 12, 2016, the court denied
the motion for reconsideration, and the Sientra Defendants and the
Underwriter Defendants each filed an answer to the consolidated
amended complaint.

"On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits
styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.
The lawsuits name the Company, certain of our officers and
directors, and the underwriters associated with our follow-on
public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants.
The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements in our offering documents associated with
the follow-on offering concerning our business, operations, and
prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs
filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior
Court, or Motions to Remand.  On January 19, 2016, defendants
filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs
filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January
26, 2016.

"On May 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' Motions to
Remand, and the San Mateo Superior Court received the remanded
cases on May 27, 2016.  On July 19, 2016, the San Mateo Superior
Court consolidated the three lawsuits.  On August 2, 2016,
plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On August 5, 2016,
defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings in favor of the
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

"On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the
San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for
the Central District of California signed a memorandum of
understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a
settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide
relief.

"On September 13, 2016, and September 20, 2016, respectively, the
parties filed notices of settlement in both courts. On September
22, 2016, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California stayed that action pending the court's
approval of a settlement. On September 23, 2016, the San Mateo
Superior Court stayed that action as well as pending the court's
approval of a settlement.

"As a result of these developments, we have determined that a
probable loss has been incurred and have recognized a net charge
to earnings of approximately $1.6 million within general and
administrative expense which is comprised of the loss contingency
of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected insurance proceeds
of approximately $9.3 million. We have classified the loss
contingency as "legal settlement payable" and the expected
insurance proceeds as "insurance recovery receivable" on the
accompanying condensed balance sheets. While it is possible that
we may incur a loss greater than the amounts recognized in the
accompanying interim financial statements, we are unable to
determine a range of possible losses greater than the amount
recognized."

Sientra, Inc., was incorporated in the State of Delaware on August
29, 2003 under the name Juliet Medical, Inc. and subsequently
changed its name to Sientra, Inc. in April 2007. The Company
acquired substantially all the assets of Silimed, Inc. on April 4,
2007. The purpose of the acquisition was to acquire the rights to
the silicone breast implant clinical trials, related product
specifications and premarket approval, or PMA, assets. Following
this acquisition, the Company focused on completing the clinical
trials to gain Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approval to
offer its silicone gel breast implants in the United States.


SIF CONSULTANTS: Summary Judgment in "Williams" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit affirmed the
trial court's findings and judgment granting the plaintiff class'
motions for summary judgment in the case captioned GEORGE RAYMOND
WILLIAMS, M.D. v. SIF CONSULTANTS OF LOUISIANA, INC., No. 16-343
(La. Ct. App.).

The plaintiff class of medical providers filed suit against
Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and Homeland Insurance
Company of New York under the direct action statute.  Executive
Risk and Homeland had each issued a claims-made errors and
omissions policy to CorVel, Corp. during consecutive time periods.
Executive Risk issued policies to CorVel for annual periods from
October 31, 1999, to October 31, 2005.  Homeland issued policies
for annual periods from October 31, 2005.  CorVel settled with the
plaintiff class for failure to comply with the mandatory notice
provisions of billing discounts in the Louisiana PPO Act, La.R.S.
40:2203.1.

After the trial court certified the plaintiff class and the
appellate court upheld that certification, a motion for partial
summary judgment was filed by the plaintiff class against
Executive Risk.  The trial court granted the motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of coverage.  The appellate court
affirmed the trial court.  While an application for writs to the
Louisiana Supreme Court was pending, the plaintiff class settled
with Executive Risk, but reserved it rights against Homeland.

Thereafter, the plaintiff class filed a motion for summary
judgment against Homeland.  The trial court granted the motion.
Homeland appealed the granting of the plaintiff class' motions for
summary judgment, raising three assignments of error.

In the first assignment of error, Homeland argued that a previous
opinion of the appellate court affirming the grant of a motion for
summary judgment against another defendant, Executive Risk,
finding that Executive Risk's policy provides coverage to the
plaintiffs' claims, renders plaintiffs' assertion that Homeland's
policy provides coverage to the plaintiffs' claims barred under
res judicata.

The appellate court found this argument to be without merit.  The
appellate court found that Homeland is not the same party as
Executive Risk, and that Homeland does not "share the same
'quality' as parties" with Executive Risk so as to have "identity
of parties" as required to apply res judicata.  The appellate
court also found that this matter does not arise "out of the
transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter."

In its second assignment of error, Homeland contended that the
trial court abused its discretion in failing to apply judicial
estoppel, thus allowing plaintiffs to take contrary positions in
obtaining two contradictory summary judgments.

The appellate court disagreed, holding that while it is true that
the plaintiffs' position in the summary judgment is different than
previously, this inconsistency is based on an argument the merits
of which have not been adjudicated.  Their previous position was
that a "claim," as defined in Executive Risk's policy, was first
filed during the time when Executive Risk's policy was in effect.
Now, they are arguing that a "claim," as defined in Homeland's
policy, was first filed during the time that Homeland's policy was
in effect because under Homeland's policy a "claim" must be a
covered claim.

In its final assignment of error, Homeland avered that the trial
court committed legal error in granting plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against it despite a number of genuinely disputed
issues of material fact.  The appellate court, however, found no
such genuine issues of material fact exist.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 29, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/eMS1iA from Leagle.com.

Defendant/Appellee, Med-Comp USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Charles Thach Curtis Jr., Esq.
          Gerard George Metzger, Esq.
          ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          829, Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Tel. No. (504) 581-9322

Patrick Juneau, Special Master is represented by:

          Patrick A. Juneau Jr., Esq.
          THE JUNEAU FIRM
          Post Office Drawer 51268
          Lafayette, LA 70505-1268
          Tel: (337) 269-0052
          Email: paj@juneaudavid.com

George Raymond Williams, M.D. Orthopaedic Surgery, A
ProfessionalMedical, LLC are represented by:

          John S. Bradford, Esq.
          William B. Monk, Esq.
          STOCKWILL, SIEVERT, VICCELLIO,
          CLEMENTS & SHADDOCK, L.L.P.
          One Lakeside Plaza, Fourth Floor,
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Tel: (337) 436-9491
          Email: jsbradford@ssvcss.com
                  wbmonk@ssvcs.com

            -- and --

          Patrick C. Morrow, Esq.
          James P. Ryan, Esq.
          MORROW, MORROW, RYAN & BASSET
          P. O. Box 1787
          Opelousas, LA 70570
          Tel: (337) 948-4483
          Email: patm@mmrblaw.com
                 jamesr@mmrblaw.com

            -- and --

          Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Nicole A. Murray-Ieyoub, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650, Poydras Street, Ste., 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Tel: (504) 525-8100
          Email: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                 smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
                 amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

            -- and --

          Thomas A. Filo, Esq.
          Somer G. Brown, Esq.
          Michael K. Cox, Esq.
          COX, COX, FILO, CAMEL & WILSON L.L.C.
          723, Broad Street
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Tel: (337) 436-6611

Defendant/Appellee, Bestcomp, Inc. is represented by:

          Larry Lane Roy, Esq.
          BROWN SIMS
          600, Jefferson St., Suite 800
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Tel: (337) 484-1240
          Email: lroy@brownsims.com

Defendant/Appellant, Homeland Ins. Co. of New York is represented
by:

          Randall Kurt Theunissen, Esq.
          ALLEN & GOOCH
          P. O. Box 81129
          Lafayette, LA 70598-1129
          Tel: (337) 291-1000

            -- and --

          Martin A. Stern, Esq.
          E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Esq.
          Raymond P. Ward, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE LLP
          701, Poydras St., Suite 4500
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Tel: (504) 581-3234
          Email: martin.stern@arlaw.com
                 paige.sensenbrenner@arlaw.com
                 raymond.ward@arlaw.com

            -- and --

          Michael E. Parker, Esq.
          ALLEN & GOOCH
          P. O. Box 81129
          Lafayette, LA 70598-1129
          Tel: (337) 291-1000

            -- and --

          Michael J. Rosen, Esq.
          Peter F. Lovato, Esq.
          SKARZYNSKI BLACK, LLP
          205, N. Michigan Ave., Ste., 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Tel: (312) 946-4200
          Email: mrosen@skarzynski.com
                 plovato@skarzynski.com

Defendant/Appellee, Risk Management Services is represented by:

          Janice Bertucci Unland, Esq.
          RABALAIS, UNLAND
          1404, Greengate Dr., #110
          Covington, LA 70433-5272
          Tel: (985) 893-9900

            -- and --

          Daniel J. Layden, Esq.
          Ronald P. Schiller, Esq.
          HANGLEY, ARONCHICK, SEGAL
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email: dlayden@hangley.com
                 rschiller@hangley.com

Defendant/Appellee, Executive Risk Specialty Ins. Co. is
represented by:

          Steven William Usdin, Esq.
          BARRASSO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN
          909, Poydras St., #2400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Tel: (504) 589-9700
          Email: susdin@barrassousdin.com

Defendant/Appellee, SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. is
represented by:

          Cynthia J. Thomas, Esq.
          GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, ET AL.
          3, Sanctuary Blvd., Suite 301
          Manderville, LA 70471
          Tel: (985) 674-6710

Cor Vel Corp. is represented by:

          John Mark Fezio, Esq.
          STONE, PIGMAN, ET AL.
          546, Carondelet St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Tel: (504) 581-3200


SOLARCITY CORP: Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have
filed an appeal from the dismissal of a stockholder class action
lawsuit.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of its
officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014.

After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the
District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a
judgment in the Company's favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs
have filed a notice of appeal.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture,
installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to
residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity
generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's
headquarters are located in San Mateo, California.


SOLARCITY CORP: Discovery Underway in TCPA Action
-------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery has
commenced in a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On November 6, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company. The complaint alleges that the
Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls to the plaintiff
and others, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
statutory damages, on behalf of himself and a certified class.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
District Court denied on April 6, 2016. Discovery has commenced.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture,
installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to
residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity
generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's
headquarters are located in San Mateo, California.


SOLARCITY CORP: Bids to Dismiss, Transfer "Gibbs" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gibbs et al v. SolarCity Corporation, Case No. 4:16-
cv-11010 (D. Mass.), Judge Timothy S Hillman held a hearing on a
motion to dismiss the case, a motion to intervene, and a motion to
transfer case venue.  Following the hearing, the Court took the
motions under advisement.

SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit, Gibbs v. SolarCity, alleging that the Company made
unlawful telephone marketing calls in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, was filed on June 1, 2016,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The two named plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of themselves
and a certified class.

The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint; the hearing on
that motion was set for December 8, 2016. The Company believes
that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss,
if any, associated with this lawsuit.

The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture,
installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to
residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity
generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's
headquarters are located in San Mateo, California.


SOLARCITY CORP: Defending Stockholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a purported stockholder class action lawsuit in
California.

On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, two of its officers
and a former officer. The complaint alleges that the Company made
projections of future sales and installations that the Company
failed to achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when
made. The plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws
and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 5, 2015 to February 16, 2016.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture,
installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to
residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity
generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's
headquarters are located in San Mateo, California.


SPOKEO INC: 9th Cir. Hears Oral Argument in FCRA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross D. Andre, Esq. -- ross.andre@troutmansanders.com -- David N.
Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Alan D.
Wingfield, Esq. -- alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com -- and Cindy
D. Hanson, Esq. -- cindy.hanson@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman
Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on December 13,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the
long-simmering Robins v. Spokeo Inc. putative class action,
following reversal of the appellate court's previous opinion by
the Supreme Court.  Robins alleges that Spokeo violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by maintaining various inaccurate data points
about the plaintiff in an online Spokeo profile.  Spokeo sought to
dismiss the case, arguing (among other things) that Robins had no
standing because he could not show that he had been injured by the
supposed inaccuracies in his Spokeo file.  The District Court
ultimately granted that motion, Robins appealed, and the Ninth
Circuit reversed, sending the case to the Supreme Court.  In a May
2016 decision that has continued to see mixed application by the
lower courts, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Ninth
Circuit had not thoroughly analyzed the requirement that Robins
show a concrete and particularized injury beyond Robins's
allegation of mere statutory violation, which it held was not
necessarily sufficient to confer Article III standing.

The Ninth Circuit is now left to reconsider whether Robins has
sufficiently pled concrete and particularized injury owing to
Spokeo's alleged wrongdoing.  At arguments on December 13,
Robins's attorney argued that all the plaintiff needs to show is
that the statute protects a concrete interest and that that
interest has been violated, not that he needs to show injury in
the traditional sense.  From that, he argued that Robins has
identified various inaccuracies in the information Spokeo
maintains and that those inaccuracies cut to the heart of what the
FCRA is designed to protect.  Conversely, Spokeo's counsel urged
the court to require a showing that Robins was himself personally
harmed by Spokeo's inaccuracies -- an inquiry that may prove fatal
to his attempts to maintain his case as a class action.

In questions to counsel, the Ninth Circuit panel wondered whether
Robins should be made (or permitted) to amend his pleading to
state with more specificity the harms he supposedly suffered, an
invitation that Robins's counsel dismissed as unnecessary and one
that Spokeo encouraged.  The panel also pressed the parties to
explain precisely how, in their view, the Ninth Circuit had erred
in its original standing analysis, thus resulting in the Supreme
Court's decision.  Again, Robins's counsel was careful to argue
that the Supreme Court was looking only for more depth from the
Ninth Circuit and for it to confirm anew that the right infringed
here was a foundational FCRA-protected right, while counsel for
Spokeo argued that the Supreme Court is looking for an inquiry
into what happened to Robins and whether his experience was
sufficient for Article III purposes.

The case is now fully briefed and argued, and the Ninth Circuit's
opinion is expected sometime in 2017.  Given the stakes in the
case, which has attracted a slate of amicus briefs on both sides,
it is possible that whatever the Ninth Circuit decides will result
in another petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The Troutman Sanders' Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor blog
offers timely updates regarding the financial services industry to
inform you of recent changes in the law, upcoming regulatory
deadlines and significant judicial opinions that may impact your
business.


STARLINE TOURS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that Starline Tours of
Hollywood is facing new allegations that it has systematically
shortchanged its employees.

The celebrity tour company is already facing a class action
lawsuit on behalf of its bus drivers.  That case alleges that
drivers were not paid for the hours they worked, were not paid
overtime, and had wages deducted for violations of company
policies, among other labor law violations.

The new lawsuit -- filed in L.A. Superior Court -- alleges that
Starline is also failing to properly compensate its bus washers,
tree cutters, mechanics and maintenance workers.  The suit names
two Starline employees, Nezhdik Keshishyan and Delon Moore, as
plaintiffs.  The suit claims that they were not paid minimum wage,
were forced to work off the clock, and had wages deducted for meal
breaks that they were not allowed to take.

The earlier wage-and-hour lawsuit contributed to the split between
Starline and TMZ, which had partnered with the tour company to
offer its Hollywood tours.  TMZ alleged that Starline failed to
live up to its obligation to cover the costs of defending TMZ in
the suit.  After winning a $201,000 judgment, TMZ called in
sheriff's deputies to raid the tour companies' offices.  Starline
has alleged that TMZ is now offering a competing tour without
permission from the state Public Utilities Commission.

Reached by phone, Starline owner Kami Farhadi said he had not
received the new lawsuit yet.  Louis Benowitz, the plaintiffs'
attorney, declined to comment.

Starline is the largest operator of Hollywood tour buses, with 120
buses and nearly 200 employees.  At least 20 companies offer
similar tours along Hollywood Boulevard.  The industry has
generated complaints from residents and calls for stricter
regulation.

In August, NBC4 investigated the industry, raising concerns about
customer safety and bad information dispensed by some tour
operators.  Earlier in December, a jury awarded $26 million to the
family of Mason Zisette, a Manhattan Beach teenager who was struck
in the head and killed while riding on the second deck of a
Starline bus in 2014.  Starline provided the double-decker bus for
a private party, and the plaintiffs alleged the company failed to
take adequate security precautions.

Mohammed Ghods, an attorney for Starline, said the suit is a
"garden variety" wage-and-hour claim.

"They use a legitimate payroll service.  They keep track of
benefits and hours properly," Mr. Ghods said.  "They're not
running a sweatshop or some underground operation."


SYNGENTA: Farmers Receive Notice to Join GMO Corn Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Zigterman, writing for The News-Gazette, reports that three
years after China began rejecting U.S. corn imports, a class-
action lawsuit against Syngenta is moving forward and corn farmers
have begun receiving notice that they may be part of the lawsuit.

A local lawyer is encouraging farmers to opt out of the class-
action lawsuit and file individual lawsuits against Syngenta, a
Swiss agriculture company.

"It comes down to essentially the assertion that basically every
farmer farms the same, and that's just not true," said attorney
Ryan Bradley, a partner at Koester & Bradley LLP in Champaign.

The class-action lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in June, and
any farmer who priced corn after Nov. 18, 2013, is automatically a
part of the class unless they opt out.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that Syngenta caused billions
of dollars in losses for corn farmers because it began selling a
new genetically modified corn seed before China had approved it,
leading to China's ban on all U.S. corn imports and a drop in corn
prices.

Syngenta denies the claims and says it acted lawfully and
shouldn't need China's approval to sell U.S.-approved corn to U.S.
farmers.

Corn farmers have until April 1 to opt out, which they can do by
sending a personally signed letter requesting exclusion.

As a lawyer seeking individual clients, Mr. Bradley admits he has
a vested interest on this issue, but he believes individual
lawsuits against Syngenta will result in greater returns for
farmers.

"Everyone farms differently," he said.  "As part of the class
action, farmers will be unable to prosecute their own individual
claims and pursue damages unique to them.  Rather, the class
action will treat all farmers the same and will not provide full
and just compensation."

Additionally, individual lawsuits would be tried in front of a
local jury, and Bradley says a class-action lawsuit "doesn't hold
(Syngenta's) toes to the fire as much as a series of lawsuits
will."

William Chaney, one of the attorneys representing farmers in the
class-action lawsuit, defended the class action.

"My personal belief is that their rights will be protected best
through the class action, and I believe that it is the best way to
present the damages that are very similar, although different in
amount for each farmer," he said.

The class action's website argues against individual litigation,
saying that "individual action exposes your farmer to the very
real potential of intensive discovery, deposition and production
of personal and financial records."

While Messrs. Bradley and Chaney disagree about how to move
forward, both agree they have a strong case against Syngenta.

"While Syngenta is not to blame for all of the decrease in corn
prices, it did contribute substantially and our experts estimate
that the farmers lost between $5 billion and $7 billion," Bradley
said.


TESLA MOTORS: Model X Owner Files Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Sage at Reuters reports that Tesla Motors Inc was sued
on Friday by a Model X owner who said his electric SUV suddenly
accelerated while being parked, causing it to crash through the
garage into owner's living room, injuring the driver and a
passenger.

The Model X owner, Ji Chang Son, said that one night in September,
he slowly pulled into his driveway as his garage door opened when
the car suddenly sped forward.

"The vehicle spontaneously began to accelerate at full power,
jerking forward and crashing through the interior wall of the
garage, destroying several wooden support beams in the wall and a
steel sewer pipe, among other things, and coming to rest in
Plaintiffs' living room," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District
of California, seeks class action status. It cites seven other
complaints registered in a database compiled by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) dealing with sudden
acceleration without warning.

The lawsuit alleges product liability, negligence and breaches of
warranty, and seeks unspecified damages.

Tesla did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

NHTSA did not return a phone call seeking verification.

The luxury Model X, launched in late 2015 X, was Tesla's first
sport utility vehicle.

In its marketing, Tesla claims the Model X is the safest SUV in
history.


TESLA MOTORS: Korean Actor's Sudden Acceleration Suit Hit Stock
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kessler, writing for Smart Stock News, reports that Tesla
Motors Inc. shares declined 0.46% on December 30, 2016, as, Ji
Chang Son, a Model X owner, sued the company.  According to Mr.
Son, his elective SUV surprisingly accelerated while it was being
parked in his driveway.  This led the vehicle to smash through the
owner's garage into the living room, harming the driver as well as
the passenger.  This can cause Tesla shares, which have already
declined 10.97% year-to-date through December 30, to a further
decline in the near future.

The lawsuit stated, "The vehicle spontaneously began to accelerate
at full power, jerking forward and crashing through the interior
wall of the garage, destroying several wooden support beams in the
wall and a steel sewer pipe, among other things, and coming to
rest in Plaintiffs' living room."  It was filed by Ji Chan in
California District Court.  The owner calls for class action
status. The lawsuit also claims breaches of warranty, product
negligence, and product liability, and asks for unspecified
damages.

Moreover, Reuters report stated that the lawsuit cited seven other
complaints registered with National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) regarding sudden acceleration without
warning.  However, NHTSA did not respond to the phone call asking
for verifications of complaints in its database.

Consequently, Tesla stated that it conducted thorough research
upon claims made by the Model X owner.  The $33.48 billion company
said that the evidence and car data reveals that the incident
resulted from the owner flooring the accelerator pedal.

The automaker further added that its vehicles possess several ways
to counter against the pedal misapplication.  It also has
Autopilot sensors to differ between standard pedal application and
erroneous cases.  Furthermore, the company also claims that its
Model X is the best safety-rated SUV ever created.


TEXAS: Kept Children in Foster Homes With No 24-Hour Supervision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Shadwick at Breitbart reports that the federal judge
overseeing a class action lawsuit against the Texas Department of
Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) has issued an order that
finds that the agency has not been complying with her December
2015 order keeping the department from placing children in foster
homes that lack 24-hour supervision. She opines that the state
agency has continued to have children in these facilities for over
a year.

In the order, U.S. District Court Judge Janis Graham Jack includes
the language from her prior finding. She writes, "The Injunction
states as follows" (emphasis added):

The State shall establish and implement policies and procedures to
ensure that Texas's PMC foster children are free from an
unreasonable risk of harm. To effect this injunction, the Court
will appoint a Special Master to help the State implement the
Goals outlined below. Further, the State shall immediately stop
placing PMC foster children in unsafe placements, which include
foster group homes that lack 24-hour awake-night supervision.
Foster group homes that immediately require 24-hour awake-night
supervision may continue to operate while the Special Master and
the State craft and enforce the Implementation Plan.

"PMC" is an acronym for "Permanent Managing Conservatorship."

The judge overseeing the class action suit brought by a children's
advocacy group ordered the state agency to comply with her order
issued a year ago--December 17, 2015. The judge says in her order
that last year's injunction order "was being incorrectly
interpreted" by the agency.

The class action lawsuit was filed in December 2014 by a New York
group called Children's Rights, as reported by Breitbart Texas.
Approximately 12,000 children who were in long-term care in Texas
were included in the class action suit. The advocacy group
successfully sought and received a scathing order from the federal
district judge.

Judge Janis Graham Jack ordered the State of Texas to enact
reforms in the system and in doing so she opined that the long-
term foster care system was improperly run and "broken." She
called it a place "where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication and
instability are the norm," as reported by the Dallas Morning News
in December 2015. She also said the system was underfunded.

The judge writes on December 27 that TDFPS:

interpreted the Injunction as allowing permanent managing
conservatorship ("PMC") children currently in foster care group
homes without 24-hour awake-night supervision to remain in said
homes and to disallow only future placement of PMC foster children
into foster group homes without such 24-hour supervision. As a
result, for over one year PMC as well as temporary managing
conservatorship ("TMC") foster children, have remained in foster
group homes without 24-hour awake-night supervision, in
contravention to the Court's desired effect of its Injunction.

The order references that the parties to the lawsuit have agreed
to "clarify" the injunction order.

The Court makes the issue of 24-hour supervision in foster care
very clear writing, "it is ORDERED that no PMC foster child shall
be placed in or remain in any foster group home that does not
provide 24-hour awake night supervision."

Judge Jack also ordered that the two special masters that were
appointed in the case "shall continue to gather information
regarding the number of foster care group homes, defined as those
foster homes that exceed six (6) children (including birth,
adoptive, or any other non-foster children living with the foster
parents) which continue to exist with or without 24-hour awake-
night supervision."

A YouTube video about the sexual and physical abuse suffered by a
13-year-old boy in the Texas CPS (Child Protective Services)
foster care system went viral after Breitbart Texas included it a
2014 article.

The YouTube video shows the young teenage boy holding homemade
signs that convey his story of what he says CPS caseworkers, and
the CPS foster care system, has done to him and his family. One
sign says "I was beatened [sic] and sexually assaulted on a day to
day basis while my Social Worker did Nothing." He holds another
sign saying "My abuse goes uninvestigated."

Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for DFPS said, "The allegations were
thoroughly investigated and there was no evidence of any
wrongdoing, nor have any criminal charges been filed against
anyone in connection to the allegations in the YouTube video."

Breitbart Texas has reached out to the mother of the teenager to
get an update on the response to her testimony before the Texas
Legislature, and if there was any response to her request to TDFPS
for a complete investigation of the foster home and circumstances
surrounding the abuse said to be suffered by her child. Breitbart
has reported in the past that Angel Linthicum Cook said "they are
trying to rake this abuse under the rug."

Mrs. Cook told Breitbart Texas that during the time period when
the former TDFPS commissioner was in office, an individual from
the Office of Consumer Affairs at DFPS contacted her after she
spoke at the Sunset Commission before Texas lawmakers. Cook said,
"I sent him evidence upon evidence only for him to never question
me, my children, or our attorneys. She received an email that
said, "I encourage you to contact the DFPS Abuse Hotline at 1-800-
252-5400 to report your concerns relating to your children during
their placements in CPS care."

Cook sent the message she said she received from the
representative who said the photographs of her children "are not
dated, and do not identify the children in the photographs" and
asked that she provide that information, and the identity of the
foster care caregivers, to the hotline staff. Instead of
forwarding the information to the other department within his own
agency, he messaged Mrs. Cook that RCCL (Residential Child Care
Licensing) was "a DFPS program responsible for investigating
reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children in DFPS care."

Cook said, "My children were once again failed by the very agency
that was built to protect them. It's been two years since they sat
before state lawmakers trembling in fear while telling their gut-
wrenching foster care stories. Today they still hold on to hope
that the new commissioner, Governor Abbott, and state lawmakers,
will hear their voices and stand united in fixing this broken
system."

Justin Cook, the teenager in the photo messaged this writer:

My mom told me about your message and I just wanted to say thank
you. Thank you for being my voice and thank you for telling my
story. I'm 16 now and I'm doing a lot better but still struggle
with things that were allowed to happen to me in foster care, but
with people like you and my parents I have hope that my video can
and has raised awareness to not only the broken foster system but
cps too. My mom tells me that I have helped give a voice to
thousands of children and I pray that I have. I plan on speaking
again at the Capital soon but I'm afraid my voice won't be heard
again like the last time. I can't help but be disappointed in Tx
state lawmakers and the agency that said they were here to protect
me but instead hid my abuse. My abuser still walks free today, my
foster parents that did nothing to stop it still foster Tx
children and my caseworker's and casa workers still hold a job. I
can't understand how that's even possible, but it leaves me to
believe that children truly don't matter to the state of Texas.
Sorry for bothering you with this but I know you will listen and I
know you will give others a voice. I know you have never met me,
but your sort of my hero. Thank you for all you have done for me
and my family. And happy late birthday.


UNILEVER: Faces Class Action Over St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Bretting, writing for Perfscience, reports that St. Ives
Apricot Scrub claims to give people softer skin but a recently
filed lawsuit alleges that the popular product is "unfit" to be
sold as a facial scrub because it can do real harm to the user's
skin.

The lawsuit has been filed by Kaylee Browning and Sarah Basile in
the U.S. District Court in California against British-Dutch
multinational consumer goods giant Unilever, the parent company of
St. Ives.

Ms. Browning and Ms. Basile claim that the scrub contains crushed
walnut shells, which make the product completely unsuitable to be
used on face.

When contacted, a company representative said, "We do not comment
on pending litigation.  We can say that for over 30 years,
consumers have loved and trusted the St. Ives brand to refresh and
revitalize their skin.  We are proud to be America's top facial
scrub brand and stand by our dermatologist-tested formula."

But, Ms. Browning and Ms. Basile also argued that the company is
misleading consumers by advertising false claims about the scrub.
They stressed that they would have never purchased the product if
they had known that it could cause damage their skin.

The plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in compensation from
Unilever.  The legal action can soon become a class-action suit as
many more users of the controversial scrub may join the battle.


UNITED STATES: IRS Fights Bid to Prevent Coinbase Data Search
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael del Castillo, writing for CoinDesk, reports that the IRS
has asked a district court in California to dismiss a filing by a
Coinbase customer that might prevent it from gaining access to the
company's user data.

Filed in the US District Court of Northern California (which
oversees the city of San Francisco where Coinbase is
headquartered), the new documents request the filing be dismissed
on the grounds that the request was only for unidentified users of
Coinbase.

In the process of filing his documents to prevent the search, so
goes the IRS argument, lawyer Jeffrey K Berns of the Berns Weiss
law firm had revealed himself as a user, and as a result, was no
longer of interest to their query.

The IRS now requests that its earlier motion be allowed to
proceed.

Notably, in Mr. Berns' original filing earlier in December, he had
requested that the IRS motion be refused on the grounds that the
so-called "John Doe" summons (for information pertaining to anyone
in a particular group of potential tax violators) would constitute
an "abuse of process."

Yet by 30th November, US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
had approved the request, paving the way for the IRS to force
Coinbase to hand over information about its users.

In addition to concerns that the request for the Coinbase user
information was "overbroad", Mr. Berns expressed concerns that
handing over user information could make users vulnerable to
attack.

Developing case

All told, the filing represents the latest in an escalation of
legal filings that have occured since it was revealed in November
that the IRS would seek to target cryptocurrency users for
potential tax violations.

The action followed a recommendation from the agency's inspector
general earlier that month in which it found the IRS had done
little to police cryptocurrency tax infringements since ruling on
its classification in 2013.

When reached for comment by CoinDesk earlier in December Coinbase
said it looks "forward to engaging the IRS," adding that it will
keep its customers updated on developments.


UNITED STATES: Judge Expected to Vacate Disabilities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post reports that a federal judge is expected this
month to officially vacate the landmark lawsuit brought against
the D.C. government for its care of people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.  That the District has apparently been
able to satisfy the court's requirements for improved care is
welcome news.  But it must be tempered by the fact that the city
took an agonizing 40 years to finally get things right.  Even more
sobering is the knowledge that of the more than 3,000 members of
the original plaintiffs, only 479 are known to still be alive.

U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle issued an opinion Dec. 13
indicating the District has achieved compliance with the court-
ordered benchmarks established as part of the class-action lawsuit
brought in 1976 by six residents of Forest Haven, the District's
former institution in Laurel for developmentally disabled people.
Citing the "long, and sometimes torturous, history of this
litigation," Judge Huvelle said the time has come to end court
supervision of the city's care and she set a final hearing in the
case for Jan 10.

The Evans lawsuit, named for lead plaintiff Joy Evans who was 8
when she was committed to Forest Haven and 17 when she died there
in 1976, forced the closure of the notorious institution.  So
inadequate was the care and so poor the conditions that the court
ruled it violated constitutional rights.  Unfortunately, though,
the city failed miserably in its efforts to place residents in the
least restrictive setting with individualized care.  A powerful
Post investigation in 1999, "Invisible Lives," detailed the
dreadful conditions and lack of attention to vulnerable people
placed in the city's care.  But despite promises from city
officials, there was little improvement.  "Systemic, continuous,
and serious noncompliance" was the characterization of Judge
Huvelle in a 2007 ruling that was followed by a series of reports
chronicling the city's failure to make significant progress in
improving the lives of the surviving members of the class action.

A key development appears to have occurred in 2010, when the city
agreed to the appointment of an independent administrator to help
bring the city in compliance with court orders.  Credit also goes
to capable leadership in the Department on Disability Services,
which set goals focused on providing residents with comprehensive
residential and health services and opportunities to lead self-
directed lives.

There is still, as the judge makes clear in her ruling, work to be
done in some areas.  There's also the understandable worry from
advocates for disabled people that once court monitoring stops,
the city could drift back into bad habits. Some safeguards have
been put in place over the decades, but city officials need to
determine if more are needed.  Equally important is the need for
advocates -- including University Legal Services, which has been
so admirably dogged in its representation of Evans plaintiffs --
to continue to be watchdogs.


VALVE CORP: Faces New Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Joss Wood, writing for Esports Betting Report, reports that
Despite a federal court ruling in Valve's favour over the class
action filed three months ago, the company is not yet out of the
legal woods.

A new action was filed just after Christmas, involving primarily
the same lawyers who launched the first action.  The first action
failed after the judge ruled that "gambling losses are not
sufficient injury to business or property for RICO (the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) standing."

The new suit takes a different legal angle, but the demand is
virtually the same:

"Restitution of all money wrongfully obtained by Valve Corp.
through the alleged online gambling and a court order barring
Valve Corp. from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair or
deceptive practices complained of."

The Valve Corporation is wealthy, and therefore vulnerable to such
lawsuits.

The smaller skin betting operators such as CSGOLounge may not have
the financial resources to make a class action worthwhile, but
even so ESforce and Borewick are wise to emphasize their legal
position that they were in no way involved in any form of illegal
gambling.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss LRE Merger Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
defendants' motion to dismiss litigation relating to Vanguard's
merger with LRR Energy, L.P. has been fully briefed.

In June and July 2015, purported LRE unitholders filed four
lawsuits challenging the LRE Merger. These lawsuits were styled
(a) Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-VCG,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; (b) Christopher
Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, 334th Judicial District;
(c) Eddie Hammond v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial
District; and (d) Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil
Action No. 4:15-cv-2017, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. These lawsuits
have been voluntarily dismissed or nonsuited.

On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit in connection
with the LRE Merger. This lawsuit is styled Robert Hurwitz v. Eric
Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-UNA, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "LRE
Lawsuit"). On June 22, 2016, the LRE Plaintiff filed his Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended LRE Complaint") against LRE,
the members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, LRE Merger
Sub, and the members of Vanguard's board of directors (the "LRE
Lawsuit Defendants").

In the Amended LRE Complaint, the LRE Plaintiff alleges multiple
causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the LRE Merger
(the "LRE Proxy"), including that (i) Vanguard and its directors
have allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities Act because
the LRE Proxy allegedly contained misleading statements and
omitted allegedly material information, (ii) the members of
Vanguard's board of directors have allegedly violated Section 15
of the Exchange Act by signing the LRE Proxy and participating in
the issuance of common units in connection with the LRE Merger,
(iii) the LRE Lawsuit Defendants have allegedly violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
because the LRE Proxy allegedly contained misleading statements
and omitted allegedly material information, and (iv) LRE's and
Vanguard's directors have allegedly violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by allegedly controlling LRE and Vanguard in
disseminating the LRE Proxy. In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges
that the LRE Proxy failed, among other things, to disclose
allegedly material details concerning Vanguard's (x) debt
obligations and (y) ability to maintain distributions to
unitholders.

Based on these allegations, the LRE Plaintiff seeks, among other
relief, to rescind the LRE Merger, and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

On August 22, 2016, the LRE Lawsuit Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the LRE Lawsuit in its entirety under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The LRE Lawsuit Defendants argue that,
among other things, the LRE Lawsuit should be dismissed because
the LRE Plaintiff (i) improperly bases his omission claims on
publicly available and/or immaterial information, (ii) improperly
alleges the LRE Lawsuit Defendants should have disclosed
information that was speculative or contingent, (iii) inadequately
alleges that the purported omissions rendered the LRE Proxy
misleading, and (iv) improperly bases his claims on forward-
looking statements protected by the bespeaks caution doctrine. The
motion to dismiss is fully briefed.

Vanguard is a publicly traded limited liability company focused on
the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and
natural gas properties in the United States.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Court Dismissed Eagle Rock Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted
the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit
relating to the Company's merger with Eagle Rock Energy Partners,
L.P.

On May 28, 2015 and June 10, 2015, alleged Eagle Rock unitholders
(the "State Plaintiffs") filed two derivative and class action
lawsuits against Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock Energy G&P,
LLC ("Eagle Rock G&P"), Vanguard, Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly
owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard ("Merger Sub"), and the
members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (collectively, the
"Defendants"). These lawsuits were consolidated as Irving and
Judith Braun v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-
30441, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th
Judicial District (the "State Lawsuits"). On November 11, 2015,
the State Lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On June 1, 2015, another alleged Eagle Rock unitholder filed a
class action lawsuit against Eagle Rock G&P and the members of
Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (the "Federal Defendants").
This lawsuit was styled Pieter Heydenrych v. Eagle Rock Energy
Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division. On February 12, 2016, certain additional alleged Eagle
Rock unitholders (the "Federal Plaintiffs") amended the complaint
in this lawsuit (the "Amended Complaint"), which is now styled
Irving Braun, et al. v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470 (the "Federal Lawsuit").

In the Amended Complaint, the Federal Plaintiffs alleged multiple
causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Eagle Rock
Merger, including that (i) Vanguard and certain of its officers
and directors allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities Act
by including inaccurate, misleading and untrue material statements
in the registration statement and proxy statement related to the
Eagle Rock Merger, (ii) the members of Vanguard's board of
directors were allegedly culpable participants in the alleged
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by signing the
registration statements and of Section 15 of the Securities Act by
participating in the issuance of common units in connection with
the Eagle Rock Merger, (iii) the Defendants allegedly violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by filing proxy statements with misleading and untrue
material statements and (iv) the Defendants allegedly violated
Section 20 of the Exchange Act by failing to use their control and
influence to stop the violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act. The Federal Plaintiffs alleged that the registration
statement and proxy statement filed in connection with the Eagle
Rock Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly
material details concerning (x) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's
financial and operational projections, (y) Vanguard's debt
obligations and (z) an imminent reduction in Vanguard's
distributions to unitholders.

Based on these allegations, the Federal Plaintiffs sought damages
and attorneys' fees.

The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Federal
Lawsuit in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). On October 21, 2016, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas granted the Federal Defendants'
motion and dismissed the Federal Lawsuit in its entirety with
prejudice.

Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Federal Lawsuit or any
others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of
this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the Federal Lawsuit. The
Defendants believe the Federal Lawsuit is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against it in the event that the Federal
Plaintiffs attempt to appeal the dismissal of the Federal Lawsuit.

Vanguard is a publicly traded limited liability company focused on
the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and
natural gas properties in the United States.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Debt Exchange Lawsuit in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the the
lawsuit relating to the Company's exchange of 7.875% Senior Notes
due 2020 (the "Senior Notes due 2020") for 7.0% Senior Secured
Second Lien Notes due 2023 (the "Senior Secured Second Lien
Notes"), is in the early stages of litigation.

On March 1, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due 2020,
Gregory Maniatis, individually and purportedly on behalf of other
non-qualified institutional buyers ("non-QIBs") who beneficially
held the Senior Notes due 2020, filed a class action lawsuit,
against Vanguard and VNRF in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The lawsuit was
styled Gregory Maniatis v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC and VNR
Finance Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-1578.

On March 18, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due
2020, William Rowland, individually and purportedly on behalf of
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit, against
Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC,
Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and
Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was styled,
Rowland v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-
cv-2021.

On March 29, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due
2020, Lawrence Culp, individually and purportedly on behalf of
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit, against
Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC,
Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and
Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC. The lawsuit was styled, Culp v.
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-2303.

On April 12, 2016, purported holders of Senior Notes due 2020,
Richard I. Kaufmann and Laura Kaufmann, individually and
purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC,
VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners
Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC in the Southern
District of New York. The lawsuit was styled Kaufmann et al v.
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-02743.

On April 14, 2016, the above styled lawsuits were consolidated for
all purposes and captioned In re Vanguard Natural Resources
Bondholder Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-01578 (the "Debt Exchange
Lawsuit"). Maniatis, Rowland and Culp (the "Debt Exchange
Plaintiffs") filed an Amended Complaint in the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR
Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners
Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC (the "Debt
Exchange Defendants") on April 20, 2016.

The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action
challenging the Company's debt exchange, whereby the Debt Exchange
Defendants issued new Senior Secured Second Lien Notes in exchange
for certain Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Exchange Offer"),
including that the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly (a)
violated Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the
"TIA") by benefiting themselves and a minority of the holders of
Senior Notes due 2020 at the expense of the non-QIB holders of
Senior Notes due 2020, (b) breached the terms of the indenture
governing the Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes Indenture")
and the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs' and class members' contractual
rights under the Senior Notes Indenture, (c) breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the
Exchange Offer, and (d) unjustly enriched themselves at the
expense of the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs and class members by
reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the Senior Notes
due 2020.

Based on these allegations, the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs seek to
be declared a proper class and a declaration that the Exchange
Offer violated the TIA and the Senior Notes Indenture.The Debt
Exchange Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and attorneys'
fees.

On August 10, 2016, the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second
Amended Complaint"), in which they realleged the claims asserted
in the Amended Complaint, named Vanguard Operating, LLC, Escambia
Operating Co. LLC, Escambia Asset Co. LLC, Eagle Rock Upstream
Development Company, Inc., Eagle Rock Upstream Development Company
II, Inc., Eagle Rock Acquisition Partnership, L.P., Eagle Rock
Acquisition Partnership II, L.P., Eagle Rock Energy Acquisition
Co., Inc., and Eagle Rock Energy Acquisition Co., II, Inc.
(collectively with the Debt Exchange Defendants , the
"Defendants") as additional defendants in the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit, and added an additional breach of the Senior Notes
Indenture claim.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety with prejudice on August 19, 2016 (the "Motion to
Dismiss") arguing that the: (1) Debt Exchange Plaintiffs lack
standing; (2) Second Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible
facts demonstrating that the Exchange Offer Violated the TIA; (3)
Debt Exchange Plaintiffs are barred from bringing state law
claims; (4) Second Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible
facts demonstrating that the Exchange Offer breached the terms of
the Senior Notes Indenture; (5) Second Amended Complaint fails to
plead plausible facts demonstrating a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) unjust enrichment is
not available as a cause of action; and (7) declaratory judgment
claims are duplicative.

The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss on September 19, 2016, and the Defendants filed a reply in
further support of the Motion to Dismiss on October 7, 2016.

The Debt Exchange Lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation.
Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Debt Exchange Lawsuit
or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the
filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time
and expense that will be required to resolve the Debt Exchange
Lawsuit. The Defendants believe the Debt Exchange Lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.

Vanguard is a publicly traded limited liability company focused on
the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and
natural gas properties in the United States.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: No Trial Schedule Yet for Landfill Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Shelly, David Martin, Karen Dillon and Scott Wilson,
writing for The Pitch, report that The Deffenbaugh landfill is
located in western Shawnee, on top of a large bluff that oversees
the confluence of Mill Creek and the Kansas River, with Interstate
435 and Lake Quivira on the east and Johnson Drive to the south.
From the bluff, a person has an expansive view of rolling hills
and forests, making it, despite the proximity to the metro's
garbage, catnip for developers.  The population in the area has
grown exponentially over the past few years.

For most of that time, the landfill had managed to co-exist with
the thousands of middle- and upper-middle-class homes and new
businesses sprouting up. Odor problems, when they happened, were
sporadic and quickly mitigated.

But Deffenbaugh was sold in March 2015 to a subsidiary of Houston-
based Waste Management, the largest waste disposal company in the
United States.  And the new ownership has not shown Shawnee's
neighborhoods and businesses -- or its City Council -- much
respect.  Soon after the transaction, a gut-churning stench began
to seep up and out of the dump.  The smell clung for miles.

Complaints rolled in -- more than 100 in the last three months of
2015.  Three came from Shawnee Mayor Michelle Distler, who lives
eight miles from the dump.

Residents began showing up at city government meetings to voice
their complaints.  Mayor Mike Olson of Lake Quivira attended one
of them and shared a petition from his constituents, expressing
their concerns.

Meanwhile, Waste Management wasn't limiting its provocations to
Shawnee.  It steadily began to piss off many of its customers
around the metro by allowing its pickup services to devolve toward
chaos.  Trash and recycling trucks were often no-shows on their
established routes throughout the area.  The company used a novel
PR strategy to push back at its new market, blaming its woes on a
shortage of qualified local drivers who could pass drug tests.
The city of Prairie Village was unmoved by this explanation and
dropped the company's service in favor of a company that had
actually bid a higher price.

Jim Murray, senior district manager for Deffenbaugh, could not be
reached for this story, but at a public meeting last summer he
blamed the extreme odors on 300 tons of wet yard waste.  Left
unexplained for now is what special magic Deffenbaugh used over
the years to contain the smell as well as it did.

By September, with the putrefaction still percolating, three
western Shawnee residents, Julie Johnston, April Wittenauer and
Joseph Clark, had had enough.  They hired Liddle & Dubin, a
Michigan law firm that handles environmental-contamination class-
action lawsuits.  The firm's website says its lawyers have won
several multimillion-dollar judgments.  The attorneys filed a
class-action lawsuit in U.S. Federal District Court in Kansas
City, Kansas, on Sept. 26.

The lawsuit noted that there are thousands of owners and renters
within the proposed class area, which has a circumference of about
two miles.  The residents' injuries include "exposure to
pollutants, horrific odors and air contaminants," the lawsuit
said.  "The foul odors experienced by area residents constitute a
stench so overwhelming that no reasonable person should be
expected to endure it."

The odors have caused residents to remain inside their homes and
not use their yards, and have caused "embarrassment and reluctance
to invite guests to their homes," the lawsuit said. According to
the lawsuit, Deffenbaugh "intentionally, recklessly, willfully,
wantonly, maliciously, grossly and negligently failed to
construct, maintain and/or operate the landfill and caused the
invasion of Plaintiff's property by noxious odors, air
contaminants and other airborne pollutants on intermittent and
recurring dates."

At a Shawnee Planning Commission last summer, a senior district
manager for Waste Management, responding to the odor complaints,
acknowledged that the "conditions at the landfill have caused the
emission of odors," according to the lawsuit.  The manager said,
"Quite honestly, we dropped the ball . . . we didn't perform up to
the level the city was used to."

No trial has yet been scheduled.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Status Conference Set for Jan. 25
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, City of Dearborn Heights ACT 345 Police & Fire
Retirement System v. The White Waves Food Company, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02355 (D. Colo.), a telephone status conference is set for Jan.
25, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge
Craig B. Shaffer.

On Dec. 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granted
Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval
of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel. The Court appointed the
City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System
as Lead Plaintiff and designated the law firm of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP Lead Counsel in this action.

The WhiteWave Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that on
September 19, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
challenging the proposed merger between WhiteWave and Danone by
City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Retirement System, a
purported stockholder of WhiteWave, against WhiteWave, its
directors, Danone, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the
directors of WhiteWave breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly unfair and inadequate sale process,
agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to
deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other potential
bidders from making competing bids for WhiteWave, allegedly
failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of
interest, and allegedly failing to disclose all material
information to WhiteWave stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger, and that Danone and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further
asserts a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against WhiteWave and its directors, and a
claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the WhiteWave directors, Danone, and Merger Sub for allegedly
disseminating a materially misleading proxy statement in
connection with the proposed merger. The complaint seeks, among
other things, rescissory damages, and costs, including attorneys'
and experts' fees. WhiteWave believes the lawsuit is without
merit.

WhiteWave Foods is a consumer packaged food and beverage company
focused on high-growth product categories that are aligned with
emerging consumer trends.


WISCONSIN: Board to Talk Gender Identity Services Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Opoien at The Cap Times reports that the board that
oversees state employees' health benefits in Wisconsin will meet
to discuss the potential impact on covered benefits and services
related to gender identity pending the results of a multi-state
lawsuit.

Members of the Group Insurance Board will meet with state
Department of Justice attorneys to discuss how coverage for state
employees may be affected by the upcoming ruling in a federal
class action lawsuit filed in Texas by several health care
providers and states including Wisconsin. The lawsuit opposes the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' rule on the
Affordable Care Act's nondiscrimination requirements, which
determined that health care providers cannot discriminate on the
basis of gender identity.

The board in July adopted changes to the state's Group Health
Insurance Program's uniform benefits to comply with the federal
rule. Those changes are set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2017.

The changes, recommended by the state Department of Employee Trust
Funds (ETF) and adopted unanimously by the Group Insurance Board,
would remove exclusions in coverage for "procedures, services, and
supplies related to surgery and sex hormones associated with
gender reassignment" and for "sexual counseling services ...
related to sexual transformation."

Attorneys for the state DOJ have said those changes should be
abandoned.

In an August memo to the board, then-deputy attorney general Andy
Cook argued that in issuing its rules to ban discrimination based
on gender identity, HHS misinterpreted federal law that prohibits
sex discrimination.

"The Affordable Care Act only prohibits discrimination coextensive
with Title IX. But Title IX's prohibition against discrimination
on the biological basis of 'sex' does not extend to the distinct
concept of 'gender identity,'" Cook wrote.

In addition to the Texas case, Wisconsin is also one of 12 states
suing the Obama administration over its guidance regarding the
treatment of transgender students in public schools, based on a
similar interpretation of Title IX to include gender identity.

Cook also argued the HHS rule disrupts the state's right to
administer its own health policy.

The changes adopted by the board go beyond what the HHS rule may
require by effectively mandating coverage for specific procedures,
Cook wrote.

The state DOJ specifically argued against removing an exclusion
for sexual transformation counseling.

"Since non-transgender patients cannot receive such counseling, no
discrimination exists by denying coverage for it," Cook wrote.
"Alternatively, a blanket exclusion for all sexual counseling
services would further protect the Uniform Benefits from
challenge."

Earlier this month, DOJ attorneys recommended the board follow
"existing laws" on the issue.

Jenni Dye, an attorney and research director for the liberal group
One Wisconsin Now, said the state should cover services for
transgender employees regardless of whether federal rules require
it.


WWE: Seeks Dismissal of Wrestlers' Amended Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Thomas, writing for WInsider, reports that WWE has filed a
new motion seeking dismissal of the class-action lawsuit against
them from dozens of wrestlers claiming that the company is
responsible for numerous health-related injuries over the years.
The motion was filed on December 23rd and was followed by a
personal motion filed by Vince McMahon, both of which again ask
the court to dismiss the lawsuit and also request that the US
District Court of Connecticut sanction lawyers Konstantine Kyros,
Brenden Leydon, S. James Boumil, Anthony Norris, Erica C.
Mirabella and R. Christopher Gilreath.

The motion argues that the Amended lawsuit, which was last updated
in November, incorrectly claims that "all of the deceased
wrestlers who have been studied to date had CTE" and that "several
hundred wrestlers died from Alzheimer's or dementia related
injuries" per the Cauliflower Alley Club's website.  It also says
that the lawsuit incorrectly alleges that WWE knew wrestlers had
"received repetitive head trauma that dramatically increased their
risks of developing neurological disorders because of its
relationship to the CAC."

The new motion to dismiss argues against the notion that the
company is legally responsible for the claims of former talent
from WCW and ECW, both of which WWE purchased in 1991.  WWE claims
that "The Amended Complaint falsely alleges that WWE had a
continuity of ownership, management, employees, and physical
location with both WCW and ECW.  It also falsely alleges that
Diana Myers, Aaron Blitzstein, Rob Garner, and Steve Barrett, all
former WCW employees, were subsequently employed by WWE."  It adds
that the ECW-related claims should be dismissed, calling them
"legally frivolous because WWE acquired certain assets of ECW free
and clear of all claims pursuant to an order of a federal
Bankruptcy Court, because WWE did not acquire or assume any
liability to Plaintiffs, and because Plaintiffs cannot plead any
exception to the general rule that a corporation that merely
purchases certain assets of another corporation is not liable for
the seller's liabilities."

The motion argues that WWE did not take over WCW operations from
parent company Universal Wrestling Corp, as the corporate entity
still exists in name.

The motion also response to claims that Ashley Massaro made upon
joining the lawsuit in November, in which she alleged that WWE
pressured her not to report a sexual assault allegation while on a
military base in Kuwait for the 2006 Tribute to the Troops show.
The motion calls those claims false and says, "This baseless and
inflammatory allegation is wholly unrelated to the claims in this
case and was presented for the improper purpose of generating
negative publicity against WWE in violation of this Court's prior
admonitions."

WWE also noted in regard to claims by the estates of Brian "Axl
Rotten" Knighton and John "Balls Mahoney" Rechner that there are
not any "plausible" facts that establish a casual relationship
between WWE and Rechner's heart attack or Knighton's accidental
drug overdose, saying, "Plaintiffs' allegations are based merely
on rank speculation in violation of the Court's prior
admonitions."  It adds that the claims from Rechner's estate are
"legally frivolous because Gayle Schecter is not the executor or
administrator of his estate and therefore lacks standing to assert
such a claim," pointing out that a previous wrongful death lawsuit
from Matt Obsorne's girlfriend and mother of his children was
dismissed for the same reason.

WWE argues that several of the Plaintiffs, "despite their claims
of traumatic brain injuries from wrestling and knowledge of the
reported long-term risks of such injuries," still currently work
for wrestling companies and thus their claims should be dismissed.
They specifically name Caroline Moore-Begnaud (Jazz), Rodney Mack,
Mark Canterbury (Henry Godwin), Bryan Clark, (Adam Bomb), Marc
Copani (Muhammad Hassan), Michael Enos, Bill Eadie (Demolition
Ax), Perry Saturn, Ahmed Johnson, Marty Jannetty, John Nord
(Bezerker), Shane Douglas, Jimmy Snuka, Terry Szopinski (The
Warlord), Mark Jindrak, Michael Halac (Mantaur), James Harrell
(Boris Zukov), Rick Jones, and James "Kamala" Harris. WWE's
arguments that some of these, such as Snuka and Kamala, are
working wrestling shows could relate to their appearances at shows
but obviously neither of them are working matches, as both have
serious health issues preventing them from doing so.

WWE additionally claims that an unnamed twenty of the plaintiffs
are legally barred from suing them due to contractual agreements
they made and that twenty -- again unnamed -- have released WWE of
their claims in the lawsuit.  Whether these names are in
additional material from the motion, much of which was sealed, is
unknown.  Several of the names -- Jazz, Rodney Mack, Terry Brunk
(Sabu), Barry Darsow (Demolition Smash), Bill Eadie, Sylvain
Grenier, Chavo Guerrero Sr., Chavo Guerrero Jr., Michael Halac,
Earl Hebner, Jon Heidenreich, Marty Jannetty, Mark Jindrak, Troy
Martin, Charles Bernard Scaggs (2 Cold Scorpio), Tracy Smothers,
Terry Szopinksi and Sione Havea Vailahi (The Barbarian) -- are
argued as having been unable to "make individualized allegations
to support each of its claims and does not identify the specific
Plaintiffs who are asserting the claims in each count."

The motion also says that a RICO claim brought against Vince
McMahon in the November Amended Complaint "is legally frivolous
because it is predicated on baseless claims of mail and wire fraud
in the presentation of Booking Contracts to Plaintiffs that
expressly set forth their agreement to be classified and treated
as independent contractors and fails to allege that McMahon made
any false statements of fact to Plaintiffs with the
contemporaneous intent to defraud them."  It noted that these
allegations were copied from a previously-dismissed lawsuit filed
by Raven Levy and others arguing against WWE's independent
contractor classification and that there is no factual basis for
them as talent willingly signed their independent contractor
deals.

WWE argues that the lawyers in the case should be sanctioned
because "they have disregarded the repeated admonitions of this
Court and have continued to make patently false allegations,
assert frivolous legal claims, and maintain this action in bad
faith and for improper purposes."  It also says that the November
Amended Complaint" was filed in bad faith and for the improper
purposes of needlessly increasing the costs of the litigation,
soliciting additional plaintiffs to sue Defendants, and attempting
to exert pressure on Defendants as part of a negative media
campaign."

Finally, WWE points out that the Amended Complaint is the
"thirteenth complaint or amended complaint filed against WWE" by
Kyros in the last two years.  Four of them have been dismissed and
"the Court also has repeatedly admonished Attorney Kyros on
multiple occasions for filing excessively lengthy complaints,
making knowingly false and deliberately misleading statements,
asserting completely irrelevant and inflammatory allegations,
repeatedly misrepresenting evidence, pursuing baseless claims as
part of a media campaign to pressure the Defendants with negative
public relations, and engaging in highly unprofessional and
vexatious conduct.  This Court also has admonished Attorney Kyros
and his co-counsel to adhere to the standards of professional
conduct and applicable rules and court orders or risk future
sanctions or referral to the Disciplinary Committee of this
Court."

A case conference is scheduled for January 24th.


ZAFGEN INC: First Circuit Appeal in "Bessler" Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs'
appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending.

On October 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E.
Hughes, captioned Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E.
Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-13618. An amended complaint was filed on
February 22, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's clinical trials
for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company's
allegedly inflated stock price between June 19, 2014 and October
16, 2015, as a result of those allegedly false and misleading
statements, as well as punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On August 9, 2016, the District Court granted
the motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice.

On August 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals and, on October 26, 2016, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The Company is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this action and
therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if
any.

Zafgen is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to significantly
improving the health and well-being of patients affected by
metabolic diseases including type 2 diabetes and obesity.


* NDP Gives Update on Canadian Tobacco Industry Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
James Wood of Calgary Herald reports that in 2012, the former
Progressive Conservative government filed suit against 14 Canadian
and international tobacco firms, seeking $10 billion to recover
smoking-related health costs.

The process around the Tory government's decision to hire the
International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers consortium as counsel on
the case remains mired in controversy and under review, but Ganley
said the NDP is satisfied with the work done so far.

"The quality of the work itself has been very good," she said in a
recent interview.

"So, at this point, it would cause further delay and be quite
costly to change counsel at this point. And so I don't think it
would be in the best interest of taxpayers to do that."

British Columbia's conflict of interest commissioner, Paul Fraser,
is currently reviewing the actions of former premier Alison
Redford in relation to questions of potential conflict of interest
around her awarding of the tobacco lawsuit legal contract as
justice minister in 2010. A key part of the consortium is Calgary-
based JSS Barristers, a firm in which her ex-husband is a partner.

Redford was cleared by Alberta's then-ethics commissioner Neil
Wilkinson when the matter was investigated in 2013, but a report
this spring from former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci
cited concerns that Wilkinson didn't have all the relevant
information. He recommended Alberta's ethics commissioner take
another look, but a potential conflict led to the appointment of
B.C.'s commissioner.

Ganley said she couldn't comment on how that report may ultimately
affect the government's legal action against the tobacco
companies, but reiterated the NDP's support for the case.

"We do believe in the merits and the cause of the case, and I
think it's potentially worth an enormous amount of money to the
taxpayers of Alberta, so it's definitely worth pursuing," she
said.

Among the allegations in the government's lawsuit, none of which
has been proven in court, is that the companies deliberately
designed tobacco products to be highly addictive, deceived
Albertans by minimizing the products' addictiveness and harm, and
falsely denied the health risks of exposure to tobacco products.

Ganley said the defendants in the case filed statements of defence
in the spring.

The next step will be the exchange of documents, then the
questioning phase.

"These things typically take a while," said Ganley.

"There's going to be an enormous amount of documents."

It has been slow going for legal action against the tobacco
industry by Canadian provinces since British Columbia filed the
first lawsuit in 1998, said Rob Cunningham, a senior policy
analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa.

There are 12 provinces and territories that have enabling
legislation allowing them to launch lawsuits and 10 have legal
action already underway.

"There are no trial dates set for any of the cases. The cases that
are the most advanced it seems are B.C. and New Brunswick, in
terms of the pre-trial discovery process," said Cunningham, noting
that he has no indication the controversy around Alberta's legal
contract has affected its case.

"It's incumbent for provincial governments to get these cases to
trial."

In 1999, the U.S. tobacco industry settled with 46 U.S. states by
agreeing to pay almost $250 billion over 25 years. That deal
featured restrictions on how tobacco products were marketed and
sold.

Cunningham said a case to watch in Canada is a Quebec class-action
lawsuit that awarded $15.5 billion in damages to plaintiffs from
tobacco companies.

The case was appealed and heard at the Quebec Court of Appeal in
November, with a decision expected in 2017.

Cunningham noted many of the same documents and issues that were
in play in the class-action trial will be at issue in the
provincial cases.

"The Quebec case demonstrates overwhelmingly the tobacco industry
can be beaten," he said.


* Plaintiffs Attorneys Says Firms Need to Comply to Avoid Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek of Legal News Line reports that plaintiffs'
attorneys and consumer advocacy groups agree there has been a
significant uptick in the amount of food and beverage class action
lawsuits filed in recent years, but they contend much of the blame
lies with manufacturers themselves and poor government regulation.

Richard Barrett, a Mississippi plaintiffs attorney who has brought
dozens of cases against food and beverage companies, said firms
such as his own, Barrett Law Group PA in Lexington, Miss., simply
are trying to change the way food companies do business.

"Food companies should be forced to follow the laws already in
place," Barrett told Legal Newsline. "They don't."

Barrett's firm has combined with several other high-quality, small
to mid-sized firms across the country to take on what he describes
as "mega-corporations" over their allegedly misleading and illegal
labeling of food products.

"Our group has filed approximately 50 cases for a variety of
violations," he explained.

In 2012, the group filed a lawsuit against Welch Foods Inc. over
its grape juices, alleging the company violated federal and state
law when it, among other things, labeled its juices with a "big,
bold, eye-catching" no-sugar-added statement without the required
disclosure that the juice had more sugar in it per ounce than a
Pepsi-brand soda.

"Our cases focus on ingredient labeling," Barrett explained.

Barrett contends class action litigation, against large companies
such as Welch, serves an important purpose.

"When large corporations have a strategy to deprive the American
consumer of just a little bit each transaction so that the
consumer barely notices or feels like it's not worth the effort to
sue, class actions allow consumers to address injury that may be
small but is huge to the corporation," he said.

"These particular cases are interesting to me because in
researching these companies and claims, I have become stunned by
the amount of labeling violations designed only to influence the
volume of sales. It's no wonder that we, as a society, are sick
and overweight."

Barrett takes issue with claims that the plaintiffs bar is solely
responsible for the increase in food-related class actions, all in
the name of profits.

"I'm glad they [company attorneys] think that," he said. "If the
plaintiffs bar is bothering them by seeking them to comply with
federal and state labeling laws, there is an easy fix. They should
immediately make all their labels compliant with the law."

He continued, "The reason that there is a 'surge' is that
plaintiff attorneys are helping their clients by taking to task
these food companies that intentionally mislead the purchasers of
the companies' products. There would be no surge without
misleading information on food labels that the companies put on
intentionally."

Maia Kats, director of litigation for the Center for Science in
the Public Interest, contends some of the blame may rest with
plaintiffs attorneys looking for their next paycheck, but she
argues the federal government hasn't done its part.

"In terms of casting aspersions on one side versus another -- it's
more complex than that," she told Legal Newsline.

"Yes, some other areas in class action law have tightened in terms
of feasibility of prosecution. But it's also because this area, in
particular, is one in which the government enforcement agencies
assigned to it -- the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the
Department of Justice and Food and Drug Administration -- really
are not active in ensuring the statutes and regulations are
adhered to by food companies.

"I think, in this instance, it's more so a void between the law
and the enforcement of that law."

CSPI, based in Washington, D.C., is one of the nation's top
consumer advocates. According to its website, the group fights for
government policies and corporate practices that "promote healthy
diets, prevent deceptive marketing practices, and ensure that
science is used to promote the public good."

Kats also agrees that consumers simply are more health savvy these
days.

"We have customers who are wanting to purchase and consume foods
that are better for them," she said.

But Kats doesn't deny that a lot of the class actions being filed
on behalf of consumers are frivolous.

"It's sad because, from our perspective, those lawsuits really
undermine our ability to make meaningful cases," she said. "There
are a lot of bad class actions out there right now, and people are
doing it for the wrong reasons.

"A lot of them have absolutely no nutritional consequence. A lot
of them make you go, 'huh?' I mean, too much ice in your drink?
Who really believes a Crunchberry is a real berry?"

Again, it goes back to better regulation, Kats says.

"Compliance isn't adequately monitored," she said. "But stop and
reflect on the number of food products out there on the market.
That's a daunting task to fund and for the FDA to accomplish."

Improved labeling guidelines would be a start, she argues -- in
particular, predominance labeling and naming.

"One activity that would help considerably, we think, to ensure
that the naming of the product is accurate is to go by the
predominance of the ingredients," Kats explained.

"If you're going to show on your products images of 'green leafy
goodness,' for example, then those images that are on the label
should be reflective of the predominance of the ingredients in the
product."

Listing percentages also would prove helpful to consumers, she
said.

Barrett doubts more guidelines would help.

"I believe that the FDA and the like are doing what they can with
the resources they have," he said. "If I could wish for anything
in the rulemaking process, I would remove the power of 'big food'
to lobby its influence into the decisions of the FDA and other
agencies regarding regulation formation and interpretation,
particularly when it comes to labeling.

"I can't say more guidelines would help since the food giants are
ignoring them anyway."





                            *********

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  * * *