CAR_Public/170125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, January 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 18



                            Headlines

AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Action
ALLERGAN INC: Tawfilis' Bid to Certify Taken Under Submission
AMAYA GAMING: Court Orders Disclosure of Liability Policies
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Ares Capital Merger Deal Closed
APPLE INC: Suit Seeks to Enforce iPhone Add Lock-Out System

APPLIANCE RECYCLING: March 2017 Opt-Out Set in Whirlpool Accord
ASCENA RETAIL: "Linares" Parties Preparing Settlement & Release
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AXA EQUITABLE: Sivolella and Sanford Lawsuits Underway
AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal in Ross and Yarbrough Suits Underway

AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal in "Shuster" Suit Underway
BANK OF AMERICA: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
BANNER LIFE: Continues to Defend Remaining Tort Claim
BASUKI TJAHAJA PURNAMA: Rp204 Million Class Action Withdrawn
BEAZER HOMES: Plaintiffs Withdrew Class Action Allegations

BEST BUY: Case Management Conference Held in IBEW Suit
BLUE DIAMOND: Settles Class Action Over "Natural" Label
BLUE SHIELD: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
BURKHART DENTAL: Seeks Dismissal of Price-Fixing Class Action

CANADA: Koskie Minsky Launches Thalidomide Class Proceeding
CANADA: RCMP Harassment Class Action May Cover 20,000 Women
CANADA: Judge Certifies RCMP Harassment Class Action
CARRIER CORP: Faces Product Liability Class Action in Florida
CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Suit in Early Stages

CHICO'S FAS: Settlement Notices Distributed in "Ackerman" Suit
CHICO'S FAS: "Ackerman" Action Settled & Dismissed
CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends "Redem" Class Action
CHICO'S FAS: Mediation Held in "Calleros" Action
COMERICA BANK: Faces Class Action Over EPPICard Account Fees

COMMAND SECURITY: Settlement Payment in "Leal" Underway
CONAGRA FOODS: Greenberg Discusses Key Class Action Takeaways
CORAL TELL: Israel Class Action Lawsuit Remains Pending
CPI CARD: Court Entered Briefing Schedule on Motions to Dismiss
CSRA INC: Parties in "Strauch" Action Explored Settlement

DAKOTA ACCESS: North Dakota Landowners File Suit Over Easements
DEUTSCHE BANK: Ordered to Pay for Investors' Damages
DISH NETWORK: Jury Awards $20+ Mil. in "Do Not Call" Litigation
DOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Health Benefit Claims
DOLLAR GENERAL: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action

DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Vacates Deadlines in "Varela" Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Proceedings in "Pleasant" Suit Stayed
DOLLAR GENERAL: Feb. 23 Final Fairness Hearing Set in "Sullivan"
DOLLAR GENERAL: Motion to Dismiss "Farley" Suit Pending
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Reached in "Debinder" Suit

DOLLAR GENERAL: Motor Oil Litigation Underway
DOMFOAM/VALLE FOAM: Settlement Hearings to Begin on March 6
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Approves $50MM Settlement for Workers
EAST POINT, GA: Court Approves Power Overbilling Class Action
ENTERTAINMENT ONE: Faces Class Action Over Sirius XM Deal

ERIN ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss to Dismiss Stockholders Suit Underway
FENIX PARTS: Faces "Beezley" Suit Alleging Securities Act Breach
FENIX PARTS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Emission Software Class Action in Canada
FIAT CHRYSLER: Rosenberg Law Probing Emissions-Cheating Claims

FOOT CENTER: Faces "Brown" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
FORD MOTOR: Kuga Fire Victim's Family Mulls Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Motor Industry Calls for Action on Kuga Fires
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Castillo Sues Over Desonide Price-Fixing
GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation

GRAIN PROCESSING: Seeks to Overturn Class Action Certification
HARVEST NATURAL: Plaintiffs Declined to Appeal Case Dismissal
HARVEST NATURAL: Stockholder to Dismiss Class Action
I-12 MEDIAN: Livingston School Board Joins Class Action
IKEA USA: 9th Cir. Vacates Order to Decertify in "Medellin" Suit

ILLUMINA INC: Feb. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in "Makover" Lawsuit
INTERSIL CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed Over Merger
JANNSEN PHARMA: Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of Invokana Cases
JD HOME: Settles Maintenance Workers' Class Action for $3MM

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Approves $5MM Deal in Baby Products Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Status Conference in "McDonald" Suit on June 15
KRAFT HEINZ: Seeks Dismissal of Parmesan Cheese Labeling Case
LA ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Goers' Motion for Reconsideration
LENOVO: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Hidden Adware

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Cash & Stock Deal Granted Final Approval
MASTERCARD INC: Lawyer Argues Lacks Spectrum of Commonality
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Motion to Dismiss IPO Class Suit Underway
MERITOR INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
MICROFIBRES INC: Settles Employees' WARN Act Class Action

MOLINA HEALTHCAREL Faces Class Action Over Medi-Cal Payments
MONSANTO: Experts Weigh in on Roundup Class-Action Suit
MONTROSE MANAGEMENT: Faces Second Class Action Over Assessments
NEW ORIENTAL: Feb. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Class of Detainees Certified in "Onadia" Suit

ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action
OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
PFIZER INC: Arbitration Policy Violates Law, Court Rules
PHILLIPS 66: Buzas et al. Allege Violations of Cal. Labor Code

PITTSBURGH GLASS: 3rd Cir. Clarifies Employer Liability Issue
PJT PARTNERS: Seeks Dismissal of "Barrett" Amended Suit
POST HOLDINGS: Accrued $28.5MM in Egg Antitrust Action
PROSPER FUNDING: To Pay $3 Million in Class Action Settlement
PTC INC: Settlement Reached in "Crandall" Class Action

QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Group File Antitrust Class Action
REMINGTON ARMS: Nine State Attorney Generals Oppose Settlement
REMINGTON ARMS: February  14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RENT-A-CENTER: Feb. 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
RIGHTSCORP INC: Court Awards Costs to Roxborough & Pietz Firms

SALTY GATOR: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Recall
SAMSUNG: Must Face Lawsuit by Galaxy S4 Users
SEATTLE GENETICS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
SERES THERAPEUTICS: Motley Rice & Cohen Milstein Named Lead Atty

STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Background Check
STEEL & TUBE: Canterbury Homeowners Invited to Join Mesh Suit
STOEL RIVES: Asks Court to Nix Suit Based on Speculative Theories
SUNPOWER CORP: Plaintiffs Must File Consolidated Suit by March 9
T-MOBILE USA: Can Enforce Arbitration Provision in TCPA Agreement

TAKATA CORP: New Mexico AG Sues Over Faulty Air Bag Inflators
TCF FINANCIAL: Watchdog Sues Over Exorbitant Overdraft Fees
TD AMERITRADE: Appeals in Order Routing Class Suits Underway
TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Hartford Wants Class Action Coverage Reversed
TESLA MOTORS: South Korean Celebrity Files SUA Class Action

THAILAND: Disabled Activists Mull Class Action Over BTS Access
TURTLE BEACH: Nevada Supreme Court Appeal Underway
TYSON FOODS: Updates on Six Employee Lawsuits
TYSON FOODS: Hillshire Brands Awaits Decision in Philippine Case
TYSON FOODS: Consolidated Suit Filed in Broiler Chicken Case

UBER TECH: Agrees to Pay $20MM Settlement for Misleading Drivers
UBER TECH: UberBLACK Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Kansas AG Joins Coalition Against Settlement
UNITED KINGDOM: 200 Judges Win Case Over Pension Cuts
UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf Class Action Hearing in London Set

UNITED PARCEL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Untaxed Cigarettes
UNITED STATES: Secret Service Settles Discrimination Class Action
VIRGIN AMERICA: Notice of Payment of Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
VISA INC: Interchange Fees Multidistrict Litigation Still Pending
VISA INC: Plaintiffs in Consumer Interchange Case Seek Rehearing

VISA INC: Home Depot Suit Transferred to MDL 1720
VISA INC: Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan Suits Remain Stayed
VISA INC: Appeal in Data Pass Litigation Underway
VISA INC: Appeal in ATM Access Fee Litigation Underway
VISA INC: EMV Chip Liability Shift Suit Remains Pending

VISA INC: Request to Appeal in Broadway Grill Suit Pending
VOLKSWAGEN: In-House Lawyers Face Obstruction of Justice Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches $4.3BB Emissions Settlement Deal with DOJ
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Approves $1.6BB Settlement with 644 Dealers
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Germany Needs to Have Collective Rights Law

WAL-MART STORES: Still Defends Pontiac General Employees Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Sold Wildfire-Contaminated Food, Suit Claims
WELLS FARGO: Saxena White Named Co-Lead Counsel in Class Action
WESTERN REFINING: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
WESTERN REFINING: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

WESTERN UNION: Settles FTC Fraud Case for $586 Million
YELP INC: Law Curbs Consumers' Ability to Leave Negative Reviews
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Yet in Class Action
ZEEKREWARDS: Ponzi Scheme Victims to Receive Third Payout

* Alston & Bird Features Key Decisions in Class Action Roundup
* Consumer Action Maintains Class Action Database
* Fiduciary Rule May Spur Class Actions Against Financial Advisors
* Judge Grants Suit for Millions Who Got Movie-Promoting Robocalls
* Massachusetts Decision to Publish Data Breach to Impact Big Law

* Supreme Court Scrutinizes Credit Card Swipe Fee Laws
* Supreme Court to Review Three Class Action Waiver Rulings


                            *********


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on Jan. 17 disclosed that it is
filing a class action lawsuit against Agile Therapeutics, Inc.
("Agile" or the "Company") (AGRX) concerning possible violations
of federal securities laws, on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Agile shares between March 9, 2016 and
January 3, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Those who
suffered a loss during the class period are encouraged to contact
the firm in advance of the March 7, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

If you purchased shares of Agile and want more information, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

Agile is a pharmaceutical company that develops and markets
prescription female contraceptive products.

On January 3, 2017, Agile revealed new information related to its
Phase 3 SECURE study assessing Agile's combined hormonal
contraceptive patch product, Twirla.  The FDA wanted the study
after it rejected Agile's initial marketing application in 2013.
The Company stated that 2% of study participants suffered "serious
adverse events" including "deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary
embolism, gallbladder disease, ectopic pregnancy and depression."
Furthermore, 51.4% of subjects left the study.  When this
information was revealed to the public, the value of Agile stock
fell sharply causing investors severe harm.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at
joon@khanglaw.com.


ALLERGAN INC: Tawfilis' Bid to Certify Taken Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Josephine L. Staton has taken under submission certain
matters filed in the lawsuit styled Adel Tawfilis, DDS v.
Allergan, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00307-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.).  The
matters are:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to strike the expert declaration and
      testimony of Susan Walker, MD; and

   -- Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr.
      Russell W. Mangum, III.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Ck7Yw8N

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242-5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Stephan, Esq.
          KRAUSE KALFAYAN BENINK & SLAVENS LLP
          550 W C St., Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101-3500
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: pstephan@kkbs-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jack Pace, Esq.
          Amanda Murphy, Esq.
          Kevin Adam, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-2787
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
          E-mail: jpace@whitecase.com
                  amanda.murphy@whitecase.com
                  kevin.adam@whitecase.com


AMAYA GAMING: Court Orders Disclosure of Liability Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter report that a Pointe-Claire, Quebec-based
online gaming company, whose former chief executive officer is
facing insider trading charges, has been ordered to provide its
general liability, errors and omissions, and directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies to shareholders who are
suing the firm.

Amaya Inc. -- whose operations include the Pokerstars online poker
website -- was ordered by the Quebec Superior Court to disclose
its insurance policies to Pierre Derome and Jacques Lemelin,
representative plaintiffs in a shareholders' class-action lawsuit.
On July 22, 2016, Messrs. Derome and Lemelin filed "a re-amended
motion for authorization of a class action and for authorization
to bring an action pursuant to Quebec securities law" in the
Quebec court, Amaya stated in its management discussion and
analysis released this past November.

Amaya must disclose to the plaintiffs "the names and copies of
their general liability, errors and omissions, as well as any
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies that they
may have in force relating to this case," Mr. Justice Babak Barin
ordered in his ruling released Jan. 13.  "The early disclosure of
that information may provide the parties with an opportunity to
make informed, sensible and pragmatic decisions concerning the
conduct of the proceedings, including perhaps the possibility of
amicably resolving the matter in question."

In March, 2016, Quebec's Autorite des marches financiers (AMF) --
which regulates financial markets -- announced that David Baazov,
then Amaya's chairman and chief executive officer, "is facing five
charges, in particular for aiding with trades while in possession
of privileged information, influencing or attempting to influence
the market price of the securities of Amaya inc., and
communicating privileged information."

The allegations against Mr. Baazov have not been proven in court.
Baazov has been replaced, as CEO, by Rafael Ashkenazi.

The class action lawsuit -- indexed as Derome v. Amaya -- was made
under a provision in the Quebec Securities Act that lets
shareholders sue for misrepresentation in the secondary market.

Amaya -- which contends the lawsuit is without merit -- said in
its MD&A that the "plaintiffs generally allege that throughout the
class period the defendants violated certain Canadian securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose (or acquiescing in
the same), among other things, that Mr. Baazov was engaged in an
insider-trading scheme, in which he provided privileged
information to third parties and artificially inflated the price
of the Corporation's securities."

In their court filings, the plaintiffs also allege that Amaya "did
not properly disclose that it had inadequate or ineffective
internal controls and that one or more of its directors and
Mr. Baazov were in breach of its Code of Business Conduct."

Amaya argued that the plaintiffs' request for disclosure of
insurance and other documents "is premature and exaggerated,"
Justice Barin noted in his Jan. 13, 2017 ruling.  "It submits that
the request must be denied as it has so been in similar cases in
Ontario in the past."

Justice Barin disagreed with Amaya.

In Ontario, Section 138.3 (1) of Part XXIII.1 of the province's
Securities Act, "creates a statutory cause of action for
misrepresentation in the secondary securities market in favour of
any person who acquires or disposes of the securities of an issuer
between the time the document containing the representation was
released and the time the misrepresentation was corrected," wrote
Mr. Justice George Strathy in a 2012 ruling.

Plaintiffs suing in Ontario also need to first obtain leave from
the court.

"Amaya spent a considerable amount of time in this case pleading
Ontario law, and therefore, the Court considers it necessary to
offer some passing remarks regarding Amaya's submissions in that
regard," Justice Barin wrote.

One case cited was the Supreme Court of Canada ruling -- indexed
as Green v. CIBC -- released in December, 2015.  That ruling was
in three separate class-action shareholders' lawsuits filed in
Ontario.  Corporate defendants were the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, Toronto-based electronics vendor Celestica Inc. and
motion picture firm IMAX Corporation of Mississauga, Ontario.  The
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in order to commence an action
for misrepresentation in the secondary securities market, under
Ontario's Securities Act, there must be "a reasonable possibility
that the action will be resolved at trial in favour of the
plaintiff."

CIBC had cited a previous Supreme Court of Canada ruling involving
Theratechnologies Inc., a pharmaceutical firm facing a class
action lawsuit in Quebec.  In Theratechnologies, the Supreme Court
of Canada "stated that for an action to have a 'reasonable
possibility' of success" under Quebec securities legislation,
"there must be a 'reasonable or realistic chance that [it] will
succeed,'" Madam Justice Suzanne C“te wrote in Green.  She added
there is "no difference" between section 225.4 of the Quebec
Securities Act and Section 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act of
the threshold test.

"While it is true as the Supreme Court in Green puts it, that
there is no difference between the languages of section 138.8 OSA
and section 225.4, it is also equally the case that, at first
blush, sections 138.8(2) and (3) contemplate a different mechanism
for a petitioner to satisfy the threshold set out in both
statutes," Justice Barin wrote in Derome v. Amaya.

Section 225.4 of the Quebec Securities Act "simply requires that
the request for authorization state the facts giving rise to the
action and be accompanied by a 'projected statement of claim' to
be served on the required parties," Justice Barin added, whereas
Sections 138.8(2) and (3) of the Ontario Securities Act "require a
petitioner and a respondent to serve and file one or more
affidavits setting forth the material facts upon which each
intends to rely and permit the affiant of such affidavit to be
examined in accordance with the rules of court."

Amaya had argued that the "information pertaining to them should
only be disclosable when Petitioners are seeking punitive damages
against them," Justice Barin added.

The individual defendants in the class action filed by Derome and
Lemelin are current and former directors and officers.  In
addition to Baazov, defendants are: chief financial officer Daniel
Y. Sebag, a board member until June, 2016; Dave Gadhia, interim
chairman since March, 2016 and former CEO of Gateway Casinos &
Entertainment Limited; Retired United States Army General Wesley
Clark, an Amaya board member until June, 2016; and director Harlan
W. Goodson, a Sacramento-based lawyer.

In Green, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a Court of Appeal for
Ontario ruling that the shareholders' class-action lawsuit against
CIBC could proceed.  Originally, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice ruled that the lawsuit was time-barred.

Despite the ruling that the lawsuit was not time-barred, the Green
ruling was still "generally a good development" for directors' and
officers' liability insurers, Stikeman Elliot lawyer Alan D'Silva
-- adsilva@stikeman.com -- told Canadian Underwriter in late 2015.
Mr. D'Silva represents Insurance Bureau of Canada, which had
intervener status in the Green case.

Three separate rulings were released.  One was by Madam Justice
Andromache Karakatsanis on behalf of herself, Mr. Justice Michael
Moldaver and Mr. Justice Clement Gascon.  Justice C“te wrote a
separate decision on behalf of herself, Chief Justice Beverley
McLachlin and Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein.

Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote a third decision.

In 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice interpreted the
Ontario Securities Act has having a "relatively low threshold
according to which leave will be denied only if, 'having
considered all the evidence adduced by the parties and having
regard to the limitations of the motions process, the plaintiffs'
case is so weak or has been so successfully rebutted by the
defendant, that it has no reasonable possibility of success,'"
Justice C“te wrote.

But the "reasonable possibility of success threshold test
articulated by this Court in Theratechnologies applies to a motion
for leave under s. 138.8 of the OSA," wrote Andromache
Karakatsanis on behalf of herself, Mr. Justice Michael Moldaver
and Mr. Justice Clement Gascon.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Ares Capital Merger Deal Closed
-------------------------------------------------
Ares Capital Corporation (NASDAQ: ARCC) announced on Jan. 3 that
it has completed its previously announced acquisition of American
Capital, Ltd. (NASDAQ: ACAS), enhancing its leadership position in
middle market direct lending in the U.S.  Ares Capital says it
continues to be the largest business development company in the
U.S. with total assets of $12.3 billion pro forma for the American
Capital acquisition as of September 30, 2016.

American Capital, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the Court has
cancelled a previously scheduled preliminary injunction hearing.

On October 18, 2016, American Capital, Ltd., a Delaware
corporation ("American Capital" or the "Company") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy
statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with respect to the
annual meeting of the Company's stockholders scheduled to be held
on December 15, 2016 to, among other things, vote on the approval
of the merger with Ares Capital Corporation, a Maryland
corporation.

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a consolidated
putative stockholder class action has been filed by stockholders
of the Company challenging the mergers in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland (the "Court") under the caption IN RE
AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD., SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Case No. 422598-V.

On September 23, 2016, the Court heard argument on defendants'
motion for a protective order to stay discovery, defendants'
motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for limited expedited
discovery. On October 6, 2016, the Court denied in part and
granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss and granted
plaintiffs' motion for limited expedited discovery.

The parties engaged in expedited discovery pursuant to the Court's
order, which was completed on November 4, 2016. The Court
scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for November 18, 2016.

On November 7, 2016, counsel for plaintiffs submitted a letter to
the Court requesting the Court vacate the preliminary injunction
hearing scheduled for November 18, 2016. Also on November 7, 2016,
the Court cancelled the previously scheduled preliminary
injunction hearing.

On November 9, 2016, counsel for defendants sent a letter to
counsel for plaintiffs regarding the withdrawal of the motion for
preliminary injunction and demanding, on behalf of the Company's
board of directors, that counsel for plaintiffs immediately notify
the Company's board of directors of any misstatements or omissions
that plaintiffs contend exist in the Definitive Proxy Statement.

On November 11, 2016, counsel for plaintiffs sent a letter to
counsel for defendants asserting that the misstatements and
omissions in the Definitive Proxy Statement were "legion," but
refused to identify any of them.

On December 15, Ares Capital said it has received shareholder
approval on all proposals for its definitive merger agreement
under which Ares Capital will acquire American Capital.


APPLE INC: Suit Seeks to Enforce iPhone Add Lock-Out System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Owen, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a new class
action lawsuit filed in California seeks to force Apple into
adding features to the iPhone that will help prevent drivers from
texting while behind the wheel, while also alleging Apple is
putting profit before consumer safety.

Filed at the Los Angeles County Superior Court by MLG Automotive
Law, the lawsuit claims Apple "had the technology to prevent
texting and driving since 2008," noting also that it was granted a
related patent in 2014.  Despite this, it is alleged Apple refuses
to implement the technology in the iPhone "over concerns that it
will lose market share to other phone-makers who do not limit
consumer use."

The suit identifies Julio Ceja of Costa Mesa, California as the
plaintiff, involved in a car accident where his vehicle was hit
from behind by another driver, reportedly distracted by using her
iPhone.

To bolster the lawsuit, data from the U.S. Department of
Transportation claiming 1.5 million people are texting and driving
on public roads at any given moment.  The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration classifies texting and
driving as six times more dangerous than driving while drunk.

"The relationship consumers have with their phones is just too
great, and the ability to slide under the eye of the law is just
too easy," the lawsuit reads.  "Embedding lock-out devices is the
only solution."

It is also alleged the iPhone is responsible for 52,000 automobile
accidents in California each year, based on data from the
California Highway Patrol and the Federal Highway Administration,
as well as an average of 312 deaths annually.

"Texting and driving has become one of the most serious issues
that confronts all of us on a daily basis," said MLG Automotive
Law founding member Jonathan Michaels.  "Legislating against
drivers will unfortunately not solve the problem.

"The relationship consumers have with their phones is just too
great, and the ability to slide under the eye of the law is just
too easy.  Embedding lock-out devices is the only solution."

The class action wants to halt all iPhone sales in the state of
California until Apple introduces some form of lock-out device
that can prevent texting while driving.

Some may consider the class action lawsuit to be frivolous, as it
is filed one month after another similar lawsuit against Apple,
blaming FaceTime for distracting a driver involved in a fatal car
crash. That suit also brings up the apparent availability of the
technology to lock-out iPhone use while driving, as well as the
2014 patent, but rather than forcing Apple to implement a
solution, that suit seeks damages and medical expenses.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: March 2017 Opt-Out Set in Whirlpool Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016,
that members in a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool
Corporation have until March 2017 to opt out of the class or
object to the settlement.

In February 2012, various individuals commenced a class action
lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool") and various
distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears, The Home
Depot, Lowe's and us, alleging certain appliances Whirlpool sold
through its distribution chain, which includes us, were improperly
designated with the ENERGY STAR(R) qualification rating
established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency. The claims against us include breach of
warranty claims, as well as various state consumer protection
claims.

The class action settlement was preliminarily approved in June
2016 and members have until March 2017 to opt out of the class or
object to the settlement. Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify
and defend its distributors in this lawsuit.

"We are monitoring Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe
the possibility of a material loss is remote," the Company said.


ASCENA RETAIL: "Linares" Parties Preparing Settlement & Release
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the parties in
the case, Steven Linares v. ANN INC., are preparing the Joint
Stipulation for Class Action Settlement and Release.

On December 29, 2015, plaintiff, Steven Linares, a former ANN
sales associate, filed a class action complaint on behalf of all
sales leads, sales associates and stock associates working in
California from December 29, 2011 through the present, in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the
class that ANN did not properly provide overtime pay, minimum wage
pay, meal and rest breaks, and waiting time pay, among other
claims under the California Business and Professions Code and
California Labor Code.

At mediation, the parties agreed to settle all claims in the suit
for a total of $3.5 million to settle both the pending claims and
other wage-and-hour claims that could have been brought as part of
the lawsuit (including claims for penalties under the Private
Attorneys' General Act). The Company believes that such amount
reflects a liability that is both probable and reasonably
estimable, thus a reserve for approximately $3.5 million was
established in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. The parties are
currently preparing the Joint Stipulation for Class Action
Settlement and Release. No date has been set for the Preliminary
Approval Hearing.

ascena retail group, inc., is a national specialty retailer of
apparel for women and tween girls.  On August 21, 2015, the
Company acquired ANN INC. ("ANN"), a retailer of women's apparel,
shoes and accessories sold primarily under the Ann Taylor and LOFT
brands.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of investors who purchased Avid
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVID) securities between August 4, 2016
and November 9, 2016.

According to the complaint, 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.

On November 9, 2016, after the close of trading, Avid disclosed
that both its third quarter 2016 bookings and revenues had come in
considerably lower than the Company had led the investment
community to expect, citing "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."

If you suffered a loss in Avid you have until January 20, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong,
Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at
212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/avid-
technology-inc.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
Vincent Wong, Esq.
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
vw@wongesq.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Sivolella and Sanford Lawsuits Underway
------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company continues to defend against
the Sivolella and Sanford litigations, said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("AXA Equitable FMG") ("Sivolella
Litigation"). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of
eight funds. The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment
Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable
and AXA Equitable FMG for investment management services. In
November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims
under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as
well as a claim for unjust enrichment. In addition, plaintiff
purports to file the lawsuit as a class action in addition to a
derivative action.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged
overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees
paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses
and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable.

In December 2011, AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2012, the
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f)
seeking restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940
Act.

In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the
defendants' motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et
al. v. AXA Equitable FMG ("Sanford Litigation"). The lawsuit was
filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are
named in the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and
seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act
for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG for
investment management services.

In light of the similarities of the allegations in the Sivolella
and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court agreed to
consolidate the two lawsuits.

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford
Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of
alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG in its capacity
as administrator of EQ Advisors Trust. The Plaintiffs seek
recovery of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission
of the contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid,
interest, costs and fees.

In January 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as
well as various motions to strike certain of the Plaintiffs'
experts in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations.

Also in January 2015, two Plaintiffs in the Sanford Litigation
filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to the
EQ/Core Bond Index Portfolio as well as motions in limine to bar
admission of certain documents and preclude the testimony of one
of defendants' experts.

In August 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motions in limine and
also denied both parties motions for summary judgment. The non-
jury trial commenced in January 2016 and testimony concluded in
February 2016.

Closing arguments occurred in June 2016 following post-trial
briefing. In August 2016, the Court issued its decision in favor
of AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG, finding that the
Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that AXA
Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG breached their fiduciary duty in
violation of Section 36(b) or show any actual damages.

In September 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
trial opinion and to amend or make new findings of fact and/or
conclusions of law. AXA Equitable's and AXA Equitable FMG's
response to this motion was filed in October 2016.


AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal in Ross and Yarbrough Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
appeals in the Ross and Yarbrough litigations remain pending.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life
Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and
entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by AXA Equitable (the "Policies"). The complaint
alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York
statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for
certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance
companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that
allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its "financial
condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums
paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period.

In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014.
In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs
and the action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In
August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

In April 2015, the same plaintiffs' law firm filed a second action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders
with "Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders," entitled Calvin W.
Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the
same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and
seeks the same relief (return of all premium paid by class
members) as the first action on behalf of life insurance
policyholders.

In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough
litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal.

In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the
Ross and Yarbrough appeals. In December 2015, the Second Circuit
denied the motion to consolidate but ordered that the appeals be
heard together before a single panel of judges. Briefing on the
appeals was complete as of September 2016.


AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal in "Shuster" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an
appeal in the lawsuit by Arlene Shuster remains pending.

A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state
court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the
Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently
became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a
result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that AXA Equitable breached the
variable annuity contracts by implementing the volatility
management tool. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. In September 2015, the New York federal district court
granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the Complaint.

In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In February
2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her appeal.

In November 2014, one of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman
filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden
County ("New Jersey state court"). This lawsuit is a putative
class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable life
insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy
Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were
subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who
suffered injury as a result thereof" and asserts a claim for
breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman.

In February 2016, the New Jersey State Court dismissed the
Complaint. In March 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In August 2015, another of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman
filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division
of New Haven ("Connecticut state court"). This lawsuit purports to
cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same
allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman.

In November 2015, the Connecticut federal district court
transferred the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Paybefore reports that on Dec. 19, 2016, a federal district court
judge for the Southern District of California denied Bank of
America's request to dismiss a putative class action over a fee
charged by Bank of America in relation to overdrafts by its
deposit accountholders.

The fee in question is an incremental $35 charge to an
accountholder in the event her balance goes negative and is not
restored within five days.  The $35 fee is assessed by Bank of
America in addition to an initial overdraft charge for the
overdraft transaction.  At issue in the case is whether the
incremental $35 fee is an authorized service charge for the
deposit account, as Bank of America contends, or interest on an
extension of credit in excess of the maximum interest rate allowed
under the National Banking Act, as the plaintiffs contend.

In denying Bank of America's motion to dismiss the case, the
district court has tacitly indicated that it views the flat fee
imposed by Bank of America when an accountholder does not restore
a negative balance within five days as an interest charge in
connection with an extension of credit.  The case may have
implications for issuers charging similar fees in relation to
their deposit accounts.


BANNER LIFE: Continues to Defend Remaining Tort Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. O'Driscoll, Esq. -- timothy.odriscoll@dbr.com --
Nolan B. Tully, Esq. -- nolan.tully@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
Dickman v. Banner Life Ins. Co., et al., Case No. WMN-16-192,
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, is one of a number of currently active purported class
action lawsuits alleging that defendant life insurers have
improperly raised cost of insurance rates.  The Dickman case was
filed in January 2016 against Banner Life and its parent
companies, Legal & General America, Inc. and Legal & General Group
PLC.  On December 21, 2016, the District Court of Maryland
dismissed all of the claims that had been brought against the
parent companies; dismissed plaintiffs' conversion and unjust
enrichment claims against Banner Life; and significantly limited
the remaining tort claim against Banner Life.

The Banner Life parent companies were sued on the basis of an
alleged captive reinsurance arrangement that was allegedly
providing them with undue profits while at the same time allegedly
leading Banner Life to recoup revenue through a cost of insurance
rate increase.  The court examined these allegations and,
accepting them as true for purposes of the defendants' motion,
determined that no plausible breach of contract cause of action
could be stated against either of the parent companies. According
to the court, plaintiffs had a contract with Banner Life, and not
with either of its parents, and it is a well-settled principle of
corporate law that parent companies are not directly liable for
the actions of their subsidiaries.  With respect to plaintiffs'
conversion claims, the court agreed with the defendants that money
is generally not subject to a claim of conversion and that the
narrow exception to this rule under Maryland law was inapplicable.
With respect to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims, the court
confirmed the general rule that such claims will not stand where
the subject matter sued upon is governed by an express contract.

Finally, with respect to plaintiffs' fraud claims, the court
dismissed the parent companies, holding that "there are
insufficient allegations regarding any fraudulent statements of
[the parent companies] to satisfy Rule 9(b)."  Although the court
permitted plaintiffs to proceed with a fraud claim against Banner
Life, it expressly limited the scope of that claim -- explaining
that plaintiffs' could only argue that "they reasonably relied on
[Banner Life's annual financial disclosures] and continued to make
excess premium payments for which they ultimately received no
benefit and thus were damaged."  The court then stated, in a
footnote, that plaintiffs' fraud allegations against Banner Life
"while sufficient at this stage of the litigation . . . may prove
difficult to establish on summary judgment or at trial."

The court's decision significantly circumscribes the scope of this
case.  Two defendants were dismissed in their entirety, creating
precedent that may dissuade future plaintiffs from naming parent
companies in these types of lawsuits.  In addition, the decision
demonstrates that the general rules precluding conversion claims
for money and precluding unjust enrichment claims when the parties
are in privity apply also in the context of cost of insurance
claims.

With these dismissed claims out of the case, Banner Life can now
focus on the breach of contract claim (which has yet to be tested
by Banner Life or addressed by the court) and the significantly
limited fraud claim.  Indeed, on the fraud claim, the court seemed
to forecast that Banner Life will have a realistic chance at
obtaining judgment as a matter of law at a later stage of the
case.


BASUKI TJAHAJA PURNAMA: Rp204 Million Class Action Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
Coconuts Jakarta reports on top of his ongoing blasphemy case,
Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama has also been the
target of several more lawsuits from various groups, including a
civil lawsuit from FPI leader Habib "Fitsa Hats" Novel for Rp 204
million to cover the cost of his own private investigation into
Ahok's blasphemy case.

A much, much larger civil lawsuit of Rp 470 billion was filed soon
after by lawyer group Advokat Cinta Tanah Air (ACTA), who argued
that Ahok owes that much as compensation to Muslims for all the
supposed material losses his blasphemy case has caused. ACTA,
which is closely linked to FPI, said that they filed the class
action lawsuit on behalf of all Muslims in Indonesia.

But their lawsuit has hit a legal dead end, which prompted ACTA to
withdraw it.

"It turns out that, until now, the judge has not accepted having
our lawsuit tacked on to Ahok's ongoing [blasphemy] case. So we
didn't think it was necessary to continue the lawsuit," said ACTA
representative Ali Hakim Lubis, as quoted by Vivanews yesterday.
Ali did not say why their lawsuit was rejected by the judge.
If we were to guess, it's probably because their lawsuit made no
sense whatsoever from a legal standpoint. Hopefully it will just
be a matter of time before a judge throws Habib Novel's lawsuit
against Ahok out the window as well.


BEAZER HOMES: Plaintiffs Withdrew Class Action Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have agreed
to withdraw the class action allegations in their lawsuit without
prejudice and filed an amended complaint removing the class action
portion of the allegations.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2016 against
the Company in Maricopa County Arizona Superior Court on behalf of
all homeowners in Arizona that purchased homes from the Company
that included a certain roof underlayment. The complaint alleges
various construction defects, but principally claims that the roof
underlayment used in these homes is susceptible to leaks and was
not installed in accordance with best practices. The monetary
damages the plaintiffs seek have not been quantified.

The Company believes these allegations are without merit and that
class action treatment is inappropriate.

The Company said, "We have removed this case to federal court. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims,
and believes at this time that any potential exposure is neither
probable nor able to be estimated. To that end, we filed motions
to dismiss the class action allegations on various grounds. After
the filing of the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs agreed to
withdraw the class action allegations without prejudice and filed
an amended complaint removing the class action portion of the
allegations."


BEST BUY: Case Management Conference Held in IBEW Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A Case Management Conference was held on January 6, 2017, before
Judge Donovan W. Frank, in the case, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-00429 (D. Minn.).

Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2016, that a trial court set a
January 2017 conference to discuss next steps in the case.

The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action
lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public."

"Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and
certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.
We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice. In

"April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the
court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's
decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive
pleadings were filed in December 2012.

"A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the
court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and,
contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in
part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been
made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not
subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported
class.

"By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. On
April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court misapplied
the law and reversed the class certification order. IBEW
petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was
denied on June 1, 2016.

"In October 2016, IBEW advised the trial court it will not seek
review by the Supreme Court. The trial court has set a January
2017 conference to discuss next steps.

"We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter."


BLUE DIAMOND: Settles Class Action Over "Natural" Label
-------------------------------------------------------
Julian Gale, writing for Foodnews, reports that Blue Diamond,
maker of Almond Breeze and Nut-Thins, has settled a class action
lawsuit over claims it advertised the products as "all natural" or
"natural" even though they actually contain synthetic ingredients.
The suit also questioned how much almonds actually went into
Almond Breeze, a plant-based alternative to traditional dairy
milk.


BLUE SHIELD: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge gave Blue Shield a quick win in a
proposed class action accusing the insurer of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on a single recorded phone
call about plan renewal, saying common sense concludes a purely
informational call isn't an ad.

Shannon Smith sued her health care insurer in December 2015,
taking issue with a recorded phone call she received from the
health plan during her renewal period, letting her know that the
plan had mailed her an information packet.  She says she never
gave written consent for such a call, and the call didn't include
the phone number of the entity responsible for placing it.

Blue Shield of California fought back and insisted the suit was
groundless, saying law and regulation allow health plan providers
to communicate plan information to their members.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney agreed, drawing a distinction
in an order on Jan. 13 between an informational call and
telemarketing.

"The call was devoid of marketing content and Blue Shield's
discussions around the call centered on ameliorating its members'
failure to open the mandated mailing and their subsequent
displeasure at insurance coverage changes," Judge Cormac said,
adding that "if the court accepted plaintiff's argument, nearly
all innocuous, customer-friendly and informative gestures would be
needlessly transformed into telemarketing and advertising."

The judge noted, "It makes no sense to the court that a single
call tracking Blue Shield's mandatory communications regarding
insurance enrollment and renewal would expose Blue Shield to
millions of dollars of liability under the TCPA."

Ms. Smith claimed that urging recipients to visit Blue Shield's
website made the call an advertisement, an argument that didn't
resonate with the court.

"Blue Shield's internal discussions regarding inclusion of the
website in the call's script demonstrate that the goal was to
direct customers to Blue Shield's member renewal tool, which
allowed consumers to compare their current plan with various Blue
Shield alternatives" for "purely informational" purposes, the
judge said, adding that "the mere fact that parts of Blue Shield's
website contain[] the capability of allowing consumers to engage
in commerce does not transform any message including its homepage
into telemarketing or advertising."

Blue Shield of California called the case "one of the most
egregious examples of a plaintiff seeking to extort millions of
dollars in statutory damages based on a single call that not only
did not advertise a product or service (and therefore was not
telemarketing), but unquestionably benefited public health. This
court ought not allow the TCPA to be stretched so far," it said.

The health plan "placed a single telephone call to the 'best'
telephone number provided by plaintiff herself with a prerecorded
message confirming that she should have received the information
and that she should review it. That's it."

The meat of the recorded message, which Blue Shield says Smith
heard when she picked up the phone on Dec. 3, was the following:
"It's time to review your 2016 health plan options and see what's
new. Earlier this month, we mailed you information about your 2016
plan and benefit changes.  It compares your current health plan to
other options from Blue Shield.  You can also find out more online
at blueshieldca.com."

The message then told Smith to call the number on her ID card if
she hadn't received the information packet.

The packet included information about premium increases and copay
and coverage changes, the company says, which are required by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Counsel for both parties were not immediately available for
comment.

Ms. Smith is represented by James Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com
-- and Zachariah Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com -- of Dostart
Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Blue Shield of California is represented by Jay Ramsey, Valerie
Alter and Fred Puglisi of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Smith v. Blue Shield, case number 8:16-cv-00108, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Jan. 18
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
holders of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. ("Brocade") (BRCD)
common stock on December 12, 2016, in connection with the
acquisition of Brocade by Broadcom Limited and its affiliates
("Broadcom").  This action was filed in the Northern District of
California and is captioned Mathew v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00237.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 2, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/brocade/. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges Brocade, its Board of Directors (the
"Board") and Broadcom with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in connection with the acquisition of
Brocade by Broadcom (the "Proposed Acquisition").  Brocade's
networking solutions help the world's leading organizations turn
their networks into platforms for business innovation.

On November 2, 2016, Brocade and Broadcom announced that they had
entered into a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger
Agreement") under which Brocade will be acquired by Broadcom.
Following a vote of Brocade shareholders approving the Proposed
Acquisition, under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Brocade
stockholders will receive just $12.75 in cash for each share of
Brocade common stock held.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Acquisition, on December 6, 2016,
defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, and on December 20, 2016,
defendants issued a materially false and misleading Definitive
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (collectively, the "Proxy").  The
Proxy, which recommends that Brocade shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material
information about the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed
Acquisition and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a
standalone basis and as a merger partner for Broadcom, including
information regarding critical data and inputs underlying the
financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion of Brocade's
financial advisor.

The complaint alleges the omitted or misstated information is
material to Brocade shareholders' ability to assess whether they
believe the Company is worth more on a standalone basis than the
consideration offered by Broadcom, and thus shareholders cannot
make the determination whether to vote for or against the Proposed
Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of holders of Brocade
common stock on December 12, 2016.  The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting
investor class actions including actions involving financial
fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as one of the leading law
firms advising U.S. and international institutional investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years.
Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of
securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients.
Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded
investors, it also strives to implement corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/brocade/for
more information.


BURKHART DENTAL: Seeks Dismissal of Price-Fixing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, report that a
regional dental supplies company on Jan. 13 told a New York
federal judge that it's too small to have participated in an
alleged nationwide price-fixing conspiracy and that the dentists
who filed the proposed class action waited too long to add the
company to the lawsuit.

Formally pulled into the case as a defendant in October when the
dentists filed an amended complaint, The Burkhart Dental Supply
Co. is accused of taking part in a vast conspiracy involving
Patterson Cos. Inc., Henry Schein Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Co.
Inc., three dominant distributors that the dentists have said
account for between 80 and 90 percent of the dental products
market.

In the Jan. 13 dismissal motion, Burkhart said that "its size and
scope betray the notion that it participated in the alleged
'nationwide' conspiracy," pointing out that it controls an
estimated 3 percent of the market and has branches in 11 states,
all of them west of the Mississippi River.

The Tacoma, Washington-based company also said that the only
specific allegations against it focus on alleged events in 2008 --
for which the statute of limitations has long expired -- and that
the dentists' other allegations are either instances of group
pleading unsupported by facts regarding Burkhart or aren't made
against Burkhart at all.

When the class action claims arose starting early last year,
Burkhart wasn't involved.  Prior to the consolidation of dozens of
complaints, none of them mentioned the company, focusing
exclusively on Schein, Patterson and Benco.  Only when the
dentists filed their consolidated class action complaint did
Burkhart appear, as a "non-defendant co-conspirator," not a
defendant, the company said.

"Plaintiffs had no reason to pursue a claim against Burkhart
before, and lack any basis to do so now," the company said.

The specific allegations against Burkhart involve a sales
representative allegedly conspiring with Schein in 2008 to fix
prices.  But that alleged conduct happened more than eight years
prior to the company being added to the current suit, the
distributor said.

Nothing can delay the limitations period either, Burkhart said,
arguing that the plaintiffs knew about the alleged conspiracy
prior to time running out and that all other allegations are group
pleadings and thus insufficient to restart the clock.

The New York court also lacks jurisdiction over Burkhart, which
has no New York presence and doesn't conduct enough business there
to confer personal jurisdiction, the company said.

Even if it did, Burkhart said its sales to Empire State dentists
lack a sufficient connection to the dentists' claims because the
company only sells to New York customers through Kois Tribal
Management Inc., a Washington-based group purchasing organization
-- the very type of entity the plaintiffs have said the co-
conspirators boycotted.

The alleged 2008 conduct doesn't connect the company to New York,
either, as it couldn't have resulted in any consequences in the
state because Burkhart didn't sell to a single New York dentist
until 2014, the distributor said.

Ultimately, the dentists have failed to show any connection
between Burkhart and the alleged conspiracy, as the company is
omitted from one of the scheme's three interrelated components --
an agreement not to poach each others' employees -- and hasn't
been included in trade show allegations at the core of the case.
Without those connections, the plaintiffs have essentially
admitted Burkhart couldn't have participated in the conspiracy,
the company said.

If the court decides not to dismiss Burkhart from the lawsuit, it
should at least sever the dentists' claim against the company and
stay it until the case against the three other companies ends.
Otherwise, the plaintiffs' decision to add Burkhart to the case at
such a late stage will require the company to do an unfair amount
of work in a short period of time.

"To date, hundreds of thousands of pages of documents have been
produced, dozens of depositions have been taken, and dozens of
subpoenas have been issued," the company said.  "Burkhart has now
been tasked with enormous 'catch-up' and ongoing discovery burdens
while simultaneously seeking to dismiss a claim that plaintiffs,
in two separate rounds of pleading, implicitly acknowledged to be
deficient as against Burkhart."

U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan refused to dismiss the case in
September, finding that allegations of collusion and threats were
polished enough to avoid dismissal.  The three distributors had
accused the dentists of wrongly depicting isolated actions as a
nationwide conspiracy, but Judge Cogan wasn't convinced.

Instead of the series of disjointed allegations the distributors
claimed it was, the complaint sufficiently showed that they would
systematically pressure rivals by threatening to use their market
power to coerce manufacturers not to sell to them if they
continued to sell dental supplies with low margins, the judge
said.

Because Burkhart wasn't added as a defendant until about a month
later, it didn't play any role in that attempt to dismiss the
case.

The plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment on
Jan. 18.

Burkhart is represented by Richard H. Silberberg, Dai Wai Chin
Feman and Jonathan Montcalm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

The proposed class is represented by Berger & Montague PC,
Hausfeld LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Susman Godfrey
LLP and Radice Law Firm PC.

Schein is represented by Proskauer Rose LLP. Benco is represented
by Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. Patterson is represented by
Briggs and Morgan PA and Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is In re: Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, case
number 1:16-cv-00696, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.


CANADA: Koskie Minsky Launches Thalidomide Class Proceeding
-----------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the proposed representative and Thalidomide survivor,
Bruce Wenham, Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto, Ontario has initiated
a class proceeding against the Attorney General of Canada on
behalf of all individuals whose applications to the Thalidomide
Survivors Contribution Program ("TSCP") were rejected on the basis
of failing to provide the required proof of eligibility.

Thalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug that was provided to
pregnant women across the world in the late 1950s and early 1960s
to combat nausea and morning sickness.  The use of Thalidomide in
the first trimester of pregnancy was directly linked to children
being born with debilitating malformities.

In 1990, the Government of Canada established a compensation
program for Canadian Thalidomide survivors.  Following lobbying
efforts, Health Canada announced in 2015 that new funds were to be
made available for Canadian Thalidomide survivors through the TSCP
and previously unidentified survivors could apply.  The TSCP
provides specific evidentiary requirements that effectively mean
that previously unidentified Thalidomide survivors could only be
eligible if they could provide prescription records or an
affidavit from the prescribing doctor.  The prescription records
are over fifty years old and likely now destroyed, and the
prescribing doctor is likely over eighty years old, if still
alive.

This class proceeding alleges that the establishment and
application of the TSCP evidentiary requirements are unlawful as
they are effectively impossible to meet.  The applicant seeks to
quash or set aside all decisions of the TSCP Administrator to
reject applicants to the TSCP for failing to provide proof of the
eligibility criteria and have their applications reconsidered.

"Canadian Thalidomide survivors have suffered immensely," says
David Rosenfeld, lead counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP, "The
requirements of the program set up to assist the previously
unidentified survivors are effectively impossible to meet and
provides a false sense of optimism that the cause of their
suffering would be recognized.  There is manifest unfairness that
the evidence and information that these forgotten survivors were
able to gather some 50 years later would not even be considered
for recognition under this program.  This unfairness has been
brought to the attention of Government of Canada, but it has not
taken any action to address the issue.  This case seeks to remedy
that unfairness and provide these forgotten survivors with much
needed access to justice."

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, pension, trade union, and litigation firms.  Its
class actions group has been a leader in class actions and has
prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.  Koskie Minsky
LLP was counsel to the survivors of former residents of Huronia
Regional Centre and 14 other residential facilities for people
with disabilities against the Province of Ontario, wherein the
Province agreed to pay survivors over $103.6 million and to
provide an apology to former residents for the harm they
sustained.  Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Cloud v. Canada,
the first Indian residential schools class action certified in
Canada, which resulted in a $4 billion pan-Canadian settlement.

Website: www.kmlaw.ca/thalidomideclassaction
Toll-free: 1-866-474-1741
Email: thalidomideclassaction@kmlaw.ca


CANADA: RCMP Harassment Class Action May Cover 20,000 Women
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manjula Dufresne and Natalie Clancy, writing for CBC News, report
that a class-action harassment suit against the RCMP now certified
by the Federal Court is open to as many as 20,000 female employees
-- and could cost the federal police force more than expected.

Janet Merlo and Linda Gillis Davidson, both former RCMP officers,
had each launched lawsuits against the force.

Certification of the class action, which Ottawa did not oppose at
a recent hearing, paves the way for the court to give its blessing
to a tentative settlement reached last May between the federal
government and the women.

Ms. Merlo, who launched her claim in 2012, said she was astounded
and overwhelmed when she realized that the class action could
include 20,000 women.

"It started with 20 of us, and then the 500 mark was a huge deal,
and now to think it could get into the thousands," she said on
Jan. 16 after a federal judge found that the lawsuit could
proceed.

"I never in my wildest dreams thought that 20,000 would answer. .
. . It's so damn disappointing that all these careers were lost
and all these lives when they knew all along it was an issue,"
said Ms. Merlo, who spent most of her career in Nanaimo, B.C.

Ms. Davidson of Bracebridge, Ont., who began a parallel lawsuit in
2015, is also a representative plaintiff of the settlement.

David Klein, a lawyer representing Ms. Merlo, said if the
settlement is approved at an upcoming hearing, it will be applied
at six levels of compensation ranging from $10,000 to $220,000,
depending on the severity of the harassment.

When a settlement agreement relating to the cases was announced in
October, it was expected to cost about $100 million, depending on
the number of women who joined.

Mr. Klein told CBC News the $100-million figure is an estimate.

"The RCMP has said they will pay the claims at the stipulated
amounts regardless of how many women come forward.  At this point,
we don't know what the total will be. It could exceed $100 million
if more women come forward than was expected," Klein said.

Federal Court Judge Ann Marie McDonald also approved a notice that
will be going out to all potential 20,000 female members of the
class in about a week. In addition to direct mailing, notices will
be published in major newspapers and social media.

Women can opt out

Mr. Klein says women can opt out if they don't want to be part of
the class action.

There will be a settlement approval hearing likely in May of this
year, he said, where women can express their support or objection
to the settlement.  According to Mr. Klein, it doesn't make sense
for any of the women to opt out of the case unless they are
pursuing their own individual lawsuit.

"This is a good opportunity to receive compensation for the
harassment and discrimination they experienced," he said.

Women who have already filed suits on their own can opt out and
join the class action too. In her written decision, McDonald said
"individual actions would be inefficient and uneconomic."

The opt-out deadline is likely to be the end of March.

Spouses and children could qualify

In addition to the "primary class" of female employees, there is a
provision that "secondary class members" -- spouses and children
of the severest cases -- could also receive compensation up to a
maximum of 10 per cent.

The harm caused by the harassment will determine which level it
will be compensated at, said Klein.

Former Supreme Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache will
evaluate the individual claims and administer the deal.

Mr. Klein said the feedback from women since October has been
positive.

"They were pleased to see RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson make a
public apology and the [changes] that the RCMP is making to
eliminate gender harassment and discrimination in the force," he
said.


CANADA: Judge Certifies RCMP Harassment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
proposed agreement to compensate women who endured sexual
harassment as employees of the RCMP has passed a key hurdle, with
a Federal Court judge agreeing two lawsuits against the police
force can proceed as a class action.

In certifying the class action, Judge Ann Marie McDonald said she
was satisfied the women have shown they have reasonable grounds to
press their lawsuit.

Judge McDonald also approved the proposed definition of class
members -- essentially all women who work for, or did work for,
the RCMP starting in 1974.

While individual claims will have to be assessed, Judge McDonald
found that a class action is preferable to forcing victims to
press claims on their own.

"Based upon the information provided by the RCMP, there may be as
many as 20,000 females who qualify as primary class members," the
judge said in her written decision.  "Individual actions would be
inefficient and uneconomic."

Former RCMP officers Janet Merlo and Linda Davidson, both of whom
say they suffered gender-based discrimination and harassment, are
appropriate as representative plaintiffs, the ruling states.

Certification of the class action, which Ottawa did not oppose at
a hearing, paves the way now for the court to give its blessing to
a tentative settlement reached last May between the federal
government and the women.

A formal approval hearing is likely in May, according to the
women's lawyers.

In the interim, a publicity blitz via direct mail and through the
media is expected to get underway to alert affected women to the
class action and to give them 60 days to opt out if they wish.
Victims also have an opportunity to comment on the fairness of the
settlement before the approval hearing.

The tentative deal, which would be administered by retired Supreme
Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache, creates six categories
of claimants.  Those who suffered the most egregious abuse would
be eligible for up to $220,000.  In some cases, family members of
the RCMP employees would also be eligible for cash.

Ms. Merlo, now of St. John's, N.L., was an RCMP constable from
1991 to 2010.  She suffered depression, panic attacks and other
health effects due to her mistreatment, court has heard. She began
her claim in British Columbia in 2012.

Ms. Davidson, 58, now of Bracebridge, Ont., filed her suit in 2015
in Ontario.  Starting with the RCMP in 1985, she is one of the few
females to reach a commissioned officer's rank.  She was an
inspector when she took medical leave in 2009, suffering from
anxiety, depression and other health issues, and retired in 2012.

In May last year, the two sides reached the tentative deal to
compensate women who experienced workplace sexual harassment or
gender-based discrimination while working for the RCMP.  Details
were announced in October and Commissioner Bob Paulson apologized
for having failed the women.

In addition to compensating the women -- Ottawa has set aside
about $100-million -- the RCMP has also agreed to address systemic
issues of gender-based harassment and discrimination.


CARRIER CORP: Faces Product Liability Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that six
consumers are suing Carrier and other heating and air conditioner
suppliers, alleging design defect and product liability.

Darren Koski, Jeffrey Yunis, John Commins, Nicole Suri, Caroline
Canales, Maria Alonso filed a class action complaint, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Dec. 29 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida Miami Division
against Carrier Corporation, Rheem Manufacturing Company, Nortek
Global HVAC, Underwriters Laboratories, LLC, Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., Intertek Testing Services, NA Inc.; Tutco,
Inc., Warren Technology Inc., Nova Coil Inc., alleging they
manufactured and distributed defective heaters and HVAC systems.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered monetary
damages from being misled into purchasing a defective heater and
HVAC equipment.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants falsely
advertised their product with certification labels that are
compliant with safety standards when this was not the case.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, damages, interest, restitution,
legal fees and all other just relief.  They are represented by
attorney Domingo C. Rodriguez -- domingo@rlomiami.com -- of
Rodriguez Law Office LLC in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Miami
Division Case number 1:16-cv-25372-RNS


CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Suit in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the case, Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., is in the early stages and class
determinations have not been made.

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit
or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its
motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company
continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not
appropriate for class treatment.

It intends to vigorously defend the matter. At this time however,
it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be
permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class,
and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful
in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is
still in the early stages and class determinations have not been
made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or
range of loss.


CHICO'S FAS: Settlement Notices Distributed in "Ackerman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that settlement notices
have been distributed in the case, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney
General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage
statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among
other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make
the same allegations on a class action basis.

In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the
matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on
August 26, 2016, and settlement notices have been distributed.

If finally approved, the proposed settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: "Ackerman" Action Settled & Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the case, Ackerman
v. Chico's FAS, Inc., has been dismissed.

In March 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Cunningham
v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Given the
overlap with the claims alleged in the Ackerman case, described
above, the Court initially stayed the Cunningham case pending
final approval of the Ackerman settlement. In October 2016, the
parties agreed to lift the stay and to resolve the matter as an
individual action. The Court has since dismissed the case. The
settlement amount was immaterial.


CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends "Redem" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Rodems v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiff sought to
represent current and former nonexempt employees of Chico's stores
in California. The Complaint alleged many of the same Labor Code
violations as Ackerman. As a result, the court stayed the matter
pending final approval of the Ackerman proposed settlement.

The Company and the plaintiff subsequently agreed to a lifting of
the stay and a filing of an amended complaint in early November,
and the Company removed the case to the United State District
Court for the Eastern District of California on November 9, 2016.

In the proposed First Amended Complaint, the plaintiff makes
similar claims of Labor Code violations against the Company but
does not seek to represent a putative class or make class action
allegations. The Company disputes the allegations of the First
Amended Complaint and, at this time, does not expect that this
case will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operation.


CHICO'S FAS: Mediation Held in "Calleros" Action
------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that mediation was held
in the case, Calleros v. Chico's FAS, Inc., in November.

On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros
v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff
alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law
requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a
stored value of less than $10.00.

The Company believes that the matter is not appropriate for class
treatment; however, it is not possible to predict whether it will
be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative
class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be
successful in its defense of this action on the merits or
otherwise. Because class determinations have not been made, the
Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss
were it to lose on the merits of the case.

However, the case was scheduled for voluntary mediation on
November 28, 2016, and, at this time, the Company does not expect
that the case will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial conditions or results of operation.


COMERICA BANK: Faces Class Action Over EPPICard Account Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC on Jan. 19 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Comerica Bank in
Atlanta, Georgia.  The suit alleges that the bank engages in
improper practices in its assessment of transaction fees on child
support recipients who receive their benefits via EPPICard debit
cards.  The suit claims that Comerica, which is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, has engaged in these unfair practices in order to
increase the fee revenue generated by a card holder's use of the
EPPICard for ATM withdrawals, funds transfers, or other
transactions.  The case, styled Griggs v. Comerica, Inc. and
Comerica Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on January 12, 2017 and has been
assigned Case Number 1:17-cv-00144-MHC.

Even though the case is filed in Georgia it proposes a class
action on behalf of EPPICard account holders in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
several other states where Comerica administers the debit card
program.

According to the suit, custodial parents who receive their child
support payments from the non-custodial parent are issued
MasterCard-branded debit cards -- referred to as EPPICards -- in
order to access their child support funds. Comerica administers
the EPPICard program for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and perhaps several
other states.  The lawsuit alleges that Comerica routinely
assesses transaction fees that violate the express terms and
conditions that govern use of these debit cards.  For example,
Comerica is alleged to have charged withdrawal fees of $1.75 when
no fee was due under the terms.

If you have an EPPICard debit card that is administered by
Comerica, or had one in the past, and you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this press release, please
contact Webb, Klase & Lemond by e-mail or by calling (770) 444-
9325.  Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC is a law firm that practices
complex litigation with a focus on litigation arising from
wrongful deprivations by corporate and government entities.


COMMAND SECURITY: Settlement Payment in "Leal" Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the Company
expected court approval and the first of the two installments of
the settlement in the case, Leal v. Command Security Corporation,
to be paid before December 31, 2016.

On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a
plaintiff's motion (Leal v. Command Security Corporation) to
certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by the
Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the State
of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date of
trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement at
the time of their employment. The case is a certified class action
involving allegations that the Company violated certain California
state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks.

On November 12, 2015, the Company agreed to a maximum settlement
amount of $2.0 million, including plaintiff's attorney fees and
costs, administration costs, and certain other miscellaneous
costs. As part of the settlement, the parties further agreed that
(i) the final settlement will be subject to court approval; (ii) a
minimum of 50% of the net proceeds will be distributed to the
class; and (iii) the settlement will be paid in two installments,
the first to be paid upon court approval of the final settlement
agreement and the second to be paid no later than one year from
final approval.  The Company expects court approval and the first
of the two installments to be paid before December 31, 2016.

The Leal v. Command Security Corporation lawsuit is one of
numerous class action lawsuits filed during the past two years
against security guard companies in California related to meal and
rest break regulations. The Company aggressively defended its
position in this case; however, given the environment in
California regarding similar lawsuits, the Company settled this
matter and believes that settling the matter provided a favorable
outcome. While the parties have established a maximum settlement
amount at $2.0 million, the Company recorded a $1.4 million
provision in the quarter ended September 30, 2015.

"We record legal costs associated with loss contingencies as
expenses in the period in which they are incurred. This provision
is based on the terms of the settlement and historical statistical
information as to the expected rate of participation in similar
cases provided to the Company by claims administrators. In the
event the rate of participation in the settlement by class members
were to exceed current estimates the final settlement amount could
increase up to the maximum settlement amount. The settlement will
be administered over the next one to two years," the Company said.


CONAGRA FOODS: Greenberg Discusses Key Class Action Takeaways
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq. -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- and Rick L.
Shackelford, Esq. -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig, in an article for Law360, report that in Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017), the
Ninth Circuit held that Rule 23 does not require plaintiffs to
establish an "administratively feasible" means of identifying
putative class members, expressly rejecting decisions like Carrera
v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306-08 (3d Cir. 2013).  But the
decision goes well beyond administrative feasibility.  Plaintiffs
counsel will argue that the decision also endorses aggregate
liability and damages determinations in consumer fraud cases to be
followed by a "claims process" overseen by claims administrators.
The impact of the decision remains to be seen, but Briseno is bad
news for class action defendants, as it likely will make class
certification easier in the Ninth Circuit.  This article discusses
the Briseno decision and offers key takeaways for future cases.

The Ninth Circuit's Briseno Decision

The Briseno case is one of many class actions challenging food
labels.  These cases have become substantially more popular in the
plaintiffs' bar, because they do not usually present any
opportunity for defendants to move them into arbitration based on
class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Customers who buy
off the shelf do not agree to arbitrate their claims.

The Briseno plaintiffs claim that a "100% Natural" label is false
or misleading because Wesson oils are made from bioengineered
ingredients, which the plaintiffs argue are not "natural."

The defendant argued that class certification should be denied
because plaintiffs did not propose a way to identify class members
and could not show that an that an administratively feasible
method existed because consumers generally do not save grocery
receipts and are unlikely to remember details about individual
purchases of a low-cost product like cooking oil.  In other words,
consumers' self-identification of what product they bought and how
much they paid (as much as four years before any complaint was
filed) should not be sufficient to establish class membership and
entitlement to share in any recovery.  The district largely
rejected these points and certified a class.

On appeal under Rule 23(f), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class
certification order, rejecting the defendant's argument that the
plaintiffs were required to demonstrate an administratively
feasible way other than consumer self-identification to identify
individuals who had purchased Wesson oils:

A separate administrative feasibility prerequisite to class
certification is not compatible with the language of Rule 23.
Further, Rule 23's enumerated criteria already address the policy
concerns that have motivated some courts to adopt a separate
administrative feasibility requirement, and do so without
undermining the balance of interests struck by the U.S. Supreme
Court, Congress and the other contributors to the rule.
Key Takeaways from Briseno

Unless reversed or modified, Briseno means that, in the Ninth
Circuit, class action plaintiffs are not required to establish an
administratively feasible way to identify putative class members
in order to have a class certified.  The decision tracks recent
decisions in the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, which also have
rejected the Third Circuit's feasibility requirement. See Rikos v.
Procter & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497, 525 (6th Cir. 2015); Mullins
v. Direct Digital LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2015).

But aside from the court's holding on administrative feasibility,
the Ninth Circuit's opinion addresses several arguments often
raised in class actions in ways that are mostly unhelpful for
class action defendants.  Here are a few key takeaways from the
decision:

"Ascertainability" is not dead: Many courts and litigants use the
term "ascertainability" to refer to different types of class
certification issues, one of which is administrative feasibility.
But as the Briseno opinion acknowledges, there are other forms of
"ascertainability," including the requirement that the class be
defined using objective criteria and that the definition not be
too vague or overbroad.  Although the Ninth Circuit rejects
administrative feasibility as a separate requirement, the court
cites Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1138 & n.7
(9th Cir. 2016), which addressed challenges to overbroad class
definitions in the context of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement and also acknowledged the potential for improper
"fail-safe" classes that define the putative class based on an
element of liability.  Therefore, even after Briseno, certain
"ascertainability" challenges appear to be alive and well,
although they likely need to be couched in the context of one of
Rule 23's express requirements.

"Administrative feasibility" is not dead either: Briseno should
not be read to mean that the difficulty of identifying putative
class members is now irrelevant to class certification. To the
contrary, the Ninth Circuit's opinion expressly recognizes that
concerns about identifying the putative class may be analyzed
within the context of Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement,
which includes "the likely difficulties in managing a class
action." The feasibility of identifying putative class members
also can be analyzed in the context of Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement as an additional individualized issue to
be compared against any allegedly "common" issue or issues.  That
said, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that administrative
feasibility is not a separate class certification requirement, and
therefore these arguments will need to be presented within the
context of Rule 23's express requirements.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit has said that manageability alone
is not a sufficient basis to deny class certification, and so any
administrative feasibility challenge will need to be combined with
other challenges to certification.  All of this likely means that
administrative feasibility has little if any role to play when
evaluating requests for class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) or
(b)(2), which are not subject to the superiority requirement, and
only a supporting role to play in cases where plaintiffs seek
certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Briseno opinion may be a boon for class action administrators:
In two separate sections of the opinion, the Ninth Circuit refers
to the role of class action administrators, first in identifying
fraudulent claims and also in evaluating defense challenges to a
class member's individual claims for damages.  The discussion of
these issues is dicta, but the Ninth Circuit appears to believe
that class action administrators have a major role to play, not
only in addressing class settlements, but also in certified class
actions that are litigated to conclusion. The use of class
administrators to identify class members had been proposed and
rejected by other courts post-Carrera, and the added expense
charged to the class to pay for administrators to provide this
service might give weight to challenges under superiority,
particularly in motions to decertify marginal Rule 23(b)(3)
classes.

Arguments about fraudulent claims are unlikely to carry much
weight: In rejecting a separate administrative feasibility
requirement, the Briseno opinion brushed aside concerns about
absent class members submitting fraudulent claims, calling the
risk "low, perhaps to the point of being negligible."  The court
noted that district courts "can rely, as they have for decades, on
claim administrators, various auditing processes, sampling for
fraud detection, follow-up notices to explain the claims process,
and other techniques tailored by the parties and the court to
avoid or minimize fraudulent claims."  With this language, and
without citing any evidence to support it, the Ninth Circuit
appears to have concluded that the risk of fraudulent claims is
not a reason to deny class certification.

Arguments about a defendant's due process right to challenge class
member claims appear to have taken a hit: In Briseno, the Ninth
Circuit rejected arguments that a class could not be certified
because a defendant has a due process right to challenge each
putative class member's claim.  The court framed the issue as
whether "defendants must have an opportunity to dispute whether
class members really bought the product or used the service at
issue," and concluded that certification would not hinder these
rights.  In the court's view, the defendant always has the right
to challenge whether the named representatives bought the product
and "will have similar opportunities to individually challenge the
claims of absent class members if and when they file claims for
damages" through the claims administration process.

The court specifically rejected the idea that a defendant's due
process rights would be infringed by the need to obtain class
member affidavits as part of a claims process.  The court noted
that, in litigation, a consumer affidavit attesting that he or she
had purchased a product generally is sufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial. The court
reasoned: "[g]iven that a consumer's affidavit could force a
liability determination at trial without offending the due process
clause, we see no reason to refuse class certification simply
because that same consumer will present her affidavit in a claims
administration process after a liability determination has already
been made."

Did the Ninth Circuit endorse aggregate damages determinations in
consumer fraud cases? In what may be the most troubling part of
the Briseno opinion, the Ninth Circuit addressed the plaintiffs'
damages methodology in a way that might be read (incorrectly) as
an endorsement of aggregate damages determinations.  The court
explained that "Plaintiffs propose to determine ConAgra's
aggregate liability by (1) calculating the price premium
attributable to the allegedly false statement that appeared on
every unit sold during the class period, and (2) multiplying that
premium by the total number of units sold during the class
period."  Concluding that a "defendant will generally know how
many units of a product it sold in the geographic area in
question," the Ninth Circuit reasoned that plaintiffs' price
premium theory would allow the defendant to know the aggregate
amount of liability "even if the identity of all class members is
not."

The court viewed this as an additional reason to reject an
administrative feasibility requirement because the defendant's
aggregate liability, and thus its due process rights, would not be
affected by any inability to know the identity of each class
member.  Although the court does not decide whether an aggregate
damages determination is permissible in consumer fraud cases and
appears to acknowledge that this issue would be governed by
applicable substantive law, plaintiffs' lawyers are sure to argue
that Briseno allows the district court to decide damages on an
aggregate basis for the entire class, followed by a claims process
where class members can claim their part of the aggregate award.

Are defendants better off in state court after Briseno? Several
California appellate decisions have recognized a separate
ascertainability requirement for class certification and held that
a failure to satisfy that requirement is a sufficient basis for
denying certification. See, e.g., Sevidal v. Target Corp., 189
Cal. App. 4th 905, 919 (2010) ("'Ascertainability . . . goes to
the heart of the question of class certification,' and 'requires a
class definition that is precise, objective and presently
ascertainable . . . .'"). Other decisions have addressed
ascertainability in far more lenient terms. See, e.g., Aguirre v.
Amscan Holdings, Inc., 234 Cal. App. 4th 1290, 1306 (2015)
("Where, as here the class (as currently defined) describes a set
of common characteristics sufficient to allow a member of that
group to identify himself or herself as having a right to recover
based on the description, and the plaintiff has proposed an
objective method for identifying class members when that
identification becomes necessary, there exists an ascertainable
class.").  But depending on the case, class action defendants may
want to evaluate whether, after the Briseno decision, they are
better off litigating class certification in state court.

Increased settlement pressure and administrative burden on courts:
By doing away with any administrative feasibility requirement, the
Briseno decision likely will make it easier for plaintiffs to
obtain class certification, which will increase pressure on
defendants to settle class actions.  At the same time, class
action defendants have been increasingly willing to try dubious
cases, and thus the Ninth Circuit's decision could mean more class
actions proceeding to trial.  The challenges of managing a
certified class through trial may lead to greater administrative
burdens on our courts, and perhaps to additional opportunities for
decertification once those burdens become clear.

The ultimate impact of Briseno is, of course, unclear.  The case
may be reheard or the U.S. Supreme Court may accept the case for
review. But if it stands, Briseno is almost certain to make class
certification easier in the Ninth Circuit, as it disposes of any
separate administrative feasibility requirement.  The opinion may
have even broader ramifications, particularly in the area of
aggregate damages, depending on how district courts interpret and
apply it.  Regardless, the decision underscores the need to take
class actions seriously, as even minor consumer disputes can
become major problems when magnified through the lens of Rule 23.

Robert J. Herrington is a shareholder and co-chairman of the
products liability and mass torts practice at Greenberg Traurig
LLP in Los Angeles and San Francisco.  Rick L. Shackelford is a
shareholder and co-chairman of Greenberg Traurig's Los Angeles
litigation practice and class action litigation group. Jeff E.
Scott is managing shareholder at Greenberg Traurig in Los Angeles.


CORAL TELL: Israel Class Action Lawsuit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Coral Tell
Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Israel.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200,
or approximately $5,300, was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District
Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company that owns and
operates a website offering advertisements. Coral Tell Ltd. is
currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone
call overages, and has served a third-party notice against Logia
and two additional companies for our alleged involvement in
facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered
by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a
virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real
cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for
the connection time between two segments of the call, instead of
the second segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the
advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge began upon
initiation of the first segment); and that the caller was charged
for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did
not support delivery of text messages.

Digital Turbine said, "We have no contractual relationship with
this company. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and a
finding of liability on our part remote. After conferring with
advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate
liability, if any, in aggregate will not be material to the
financial position or results or operations of the Company for any
future period."


CPI CARD: Court Entered Briefing Schedule on Motions to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
entered a briefing schedule on defendants' prospective motion(s)
to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, In Re CPI Card Group
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.).

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with
the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters for CPI's October 2015 IPO.  The complaints,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common
stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed
in connection with the IPO, assert claims under Sec. 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and seek, among
other things, damages and costs.  In particular, the complaints
allege that the Registration Statement contained false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers' (i)
purchases of Europay, MasterCard, and VISA chip cards
(collectively, "EMV cards") during the first half of fiscal year
2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to
purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2015, the remainder of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015,
and the fiscal year .  The complaints allege that these actions
artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued
pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

Labaton Sucharow was appointed lead counsel, according to the
firm's press statement.

On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sec. 11 and
15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based
principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but
adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained
inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and
mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV
technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI
faced in the EMV market.

The Court has entered a briefing schedule on defendants'
prospective motion(s) to dismiss the amended complaint. All
discovery and other proceedings in the action are stayed under the
PSLRA pending the resolution of such motions.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.

CPI Card is a provider of comprehensive financial payment card
solutions in North America.


CSRA INC: Parties in "Strauch" Action Explored Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
CSRA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the Strauch
et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action have explored
potential settlement scenarios but have not concluded any
settlement.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC, therefore, owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. CSC's
Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015.

In September 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
added claims under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws.
The relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and
civil penalties. If a liability is ultimately incurred as a result
of these claims, CSRA would pay a portion to CSC pursuant to an
indemnity obligation. CSC and CSRA both maintain the position that
system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and
salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt
from overtime compensation requirements.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The conditionally certified FLSA and
putative classes include approximately 1,285 system
administrators, of whom 407 are employed by CSRA and the remainder
employed by CSC. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in
determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the
FLSA.

In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court
examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed
class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally
certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an
opportunity to opt-in to the action.

The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon
completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all
evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a
sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are
similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case
will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class
is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported
class representatives proceed. CSRA's and CSC's position in this
litigation continues to be that the employees identified as
belonging to the conditional class were paid in accordance with
the FLSA and applicable state laws.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 3,
2016. CSC filed its opposition on July 15, 2016. Plaintiffs filed
their reply brief on August 12, 2016 and the matter is currently
under advisement with the Court.

The parties have explored potential settlement scenarios but have
not concluded any settlement. Accordingly, the litigation is
ongoing and briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the next step in the litigation, is in progress.

CSRA delivers IT, mission- and operations-related services across
the U.S. federal government to the DoD, intelligence community and
homeland security, civil and healthcare agencies, as well as
certain state and local government agencies.


DAKOTA ACCESS: North Dakota Landowners File Suit Over Easements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Nicholson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
group of about two dozen North Dakota landowners is suing the
developer of the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline for alleged
deceit and fraud in acquiring land easements.

The Morton County landowners are seeking more than $4 million in
damages in the federal lawsuit filed this month against Dakota
Access LLC, a subsidiary of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners.

The landowners maintain Dakota Access engaged in unfair tactics
and fraud while negotiating to lay pipeline on private land,
resulting in compensation that was as much as nine times lower
than what other landowners got.

ETP spokeswoman Vicki Granado says the company believes the
allegations are without merit.  The company has until about the
end of the month to file its response in court.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Ordered to Pay for Investors' Damages
----------------------------------------------------
Lee Hyun-jung at Pulse reports Deutsche Bank AG was ordered by a
lower South Korean court to pay damages to individual investors
for their losses in equity-linked securities as the result of
stock price manipulation by the German bank in the country's
first-ever class action litigation on securities.

The Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of six plaintiffs
on Friday, obligating the German bank to pay 8.58 billion won
($7.3 million) in damages in the first kind of its case since the
Securities-Related Class Action Act was introduced in 2005. If
upheld by the top court, other investors that had been burned up
to 25 percent in their investment in ELS sold by Korea Investment
& Securities Co. in 2007 also would have to be compensated.

The investment product was linked to the performance of underlying
shares of KB Kookmin Bank and Samsung Electronics. Deutsche Bank
who was responsible for hedging the investment sold large amount
of shares in KB Kookmin Bank right before market closing in August
2009 and brought down the stock price below the expiry benchmark
to cause 25 percent loss in the principal for the investors in the
ELS.

It was the third class action lawsuit related to securities
approved by the Supreme Court, following the class action suits
brought against construction equipment parts supplier Jinsung
T.E.C. and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) by their shareholders.
Jinsung T.E.C. reached out-of-court settlement with shareholders.
The first trial on the RBC suit is in motion.


DISH NETWORK: Jury Awards $20+ Mil. in "Do Not Call" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a federal jury in North
Carolina is awarding more than $20 million to 51,000 people on the
Do Not Call registry who were contacted by Dish Network.

Citing a report by The Herald-Sun of Durham, the AP said a jury
decided on Jan. 20 to give $400 to each of the people on the
registry called at the end of a five-day trial in the class-action
lawsuit.

The jury could have decided to award between $0 and $500, the
report said.

According to the AP, Dish Network sent Herald-Sun an email saying
is disagrees with the verdict and is considering an appeal.

The phone calls were made by a defunct Dish Dealer. A law firm
reviewed 1.6 million calls to find the ones that violated the Do
Not Call Registry created in 2003, the report noted.

                           *     *     *

DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a portion of the
alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party
retailer at issue in the Do Not Call Litigation case are the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina.  Trial in that action was scheduled to commence
on January 9, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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


DOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Health Benefit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California consumer is suing Dole Foods, alleging breach of
warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Alfredo Ramirez of Orange County filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Dec. 27 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Dole Packaged Foods LLC, and Does 1 through 25,
alleging they made false claims regarding the health benefits of
their food products.

According to the complaint, Mr. Ramirez suffered monetary damages
from being misled into buying Dole food products that were
promised to be healthy.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants say
their products are "healthy" despite having large quantities of
sugar.

Mr. Ramirez seeks trial by jury, compensatory and punitive
damages, interest, restitution, injunctive relief, court costs and
all further relief the court grants.  He is represented by
attorneys Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates APC in Newport
Beach, California, and by Ross Cornell in Long Beach, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:16-cv-02260-DOC-DFM


DOLLAR GENERAL: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Jan. 19
disclosed that it has filed a shareholder class action lawsuit
against Dollar General Corporation (DG) ("Dollar General" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 10, 2016 and November 30, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee and is captioned Iron Workers
Local Union No. 405 Annuity Fund v. Dollar General Corp., et al.,
No. 3:17-cv-00063.

Investors who purchased Dollar General securities during the Class
Period may, no later than March 20, 2017, petition the Court to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information, or to view a copy of the complaint, please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/dollar-general-
corporation#join.

Dollar General investors who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne
O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Dollar General is one of the largest discount retailers in the
United States.  As a discount retailer, Dollar General's core
customers are low- and fixed-income households, a significant
percentage of which qualify for the federal food stamp benefits
program (formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program or "SNAP").  Beginning in 1996, SNAP benefits were limited
to no more than 3 months out of any 26 month period for unemployed
individuals who are not disabled or raising minor children.  Many
states waived this limitation in the aftermath of the 2008
financial crisis.  Given the improving condition of the U.S.
economy, at least 20 states were planning to re-implement the
limitation in 2016, which would go into effect in April at the
beginning of the second fiscal quarter of 2016.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and
operations to investors.  Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
announced limitations on SNAP benefits would have a material
impact on the Company's financial performance because 56% of
Dollar General's stores are located in states that re-implemented
time limitations on SNAP benefits in 2016, and therefore the
impact of SNAP reductions would be disproportionate to the
percentage of the Company's overall sales comprised of SNAP
payments.  These statements were material to investors because
they were made in response to concerns by analysts that SNAP
benefits were going to be reduced in a number of states -- which
potentially would have impacted Dollar General's sales to the
extent its business operations were exposed to SNAP changes.

The truth about the impact that SNAP reductions were having on
Dollar General's business began to surface on August 25, 2016,
when the Company announced disappointing second quarter 2016
financial and operational results.  The Company attributed its
disappointing quarterly results, in part, to "a reduction in both
SNAP participation rates and benefit levels."  On this news,
Dollar General's stock price declined $16.18 per share, or more
than 17%, from a close of $91.79 per share on August 24, 2016, to
close at $75.61 on August 25, 2016.

Subsequently, on December 1, 2016, Dollar General announced third
quarter 2016 financial and operational results that included a
reduction in same-store sales, even though the Company had
previously predicted annual same-store sales growth of 2-4%, and
most analysts expected a quarterly increase in same-store sales of
nearly 1%.  The Company again attributed its poor quarterly
performance, in large part, to reductions in SNAP benefits, and
finally admitted the true impact that SNAP reductions were having
on its sales, stating that the benefit reductions "affect[] about
56% of our store base . . . And those states that have had the
reduction or elimination, they are approximately 100-basis-point
worse in comp.  That gives you a real good idea of how impactful
those SNAP benefits reductions have been."  On this news, Dollar
General's stock price declined $3.84, or nearly 5%, from a close
of $77.32 per share on November 30, 2016, to close at $73.48 per
share on December 1, 2016.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Vacates Deadlines in "Varela" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Juan Varela v. Dolgen California, the court has
vacated the deadlines for the filing of motions related to class
certification in light of other discovery matters pending before
the court, and no new deadlines have been set, Dollar General
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended October 28, 2016.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 ("Varela") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside.  In the original complaint, the Varela plaintiff
alleges that he and other "key carriers" were not provided with
meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential
damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs and seeks to represent a putative class of
California "key carriers" as to these claims.  The Varela
plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and
seeks to proceed under California's Private Attorney General Act
(the "PAGA").

On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended
complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and
to add putative class claims on behalf of "key carriers" for
alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide
appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law.

The Company filed answers to both the complaint and amended
complaint.  The court recently vacated the deadlines for the
filing of motions related to class certification in light of other
discovery matters pending before the court.  No new deadlines have
been set.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Proceedings in "Pleasant" Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
The court has stayed proceedings in the case, Kendra Pleasant v.
Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, until
resolution of the Varela matter, Dollar General Corporation said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2016.

On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar
General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50
("Pleasant") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff
seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly
situated non-exempt California store-level employees were not paid
for all time worked, provided meal and rest breaks, reimbursed for
necessary work related expenses, and provided with accurate wage
statements and seeks to recover unpaid wages, civil and statutory
penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has stayed proceedings in this matter until resolution
of the Varela matter.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Feb. 23 Final Fairness Hearing Set in "Sullivan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that the final
fairness hearing is scheduled for February 23, 2017, in the case,
Sullivan v. Dolgen California.

On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 100 ("Sullivan") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other
similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the
State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees
and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage
statements in violation of California law.  The Sullivan plaintiff
also alleges that she and other California store employees were
not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in
violation of California law.  The plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory
penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
filed its answer on the same date.  On April 29, 2015, the
Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the
PAGA.  The Company's response to the amended complaint was filed
on May 14, 2015.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed in March
2016.  Plaintiff subsequently conceded that her exemption claim is
not amenable to class certification but continued to pursue her
individual misclassification claim and class certification of her
wage statement claim.

On June 14, 2016, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to
resolve this matter for an amount not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a whole, which has been
submitted to, and received preliminary approval from, the court.
The final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 23, 2017.

At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court
will grant final approval to the settlement.  If the court does
not approve the settlement and the case proceeds, it is not
possible to predict whether Sullivan ultimately will be permitted
to proceed as a class action with respect to the wage statement
claim, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be
successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Motion to Dismiss "Farley" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in the case by Eric
Farley and Dane Rinaldi remains pending.

On July 8, 2016, a lawsuit entitled Eric Farley and Dane Rinaldi
v. Dolgen California, LLC ("Farley") was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin.
The Farley plaintiffs allege they and other similarly situated
"key carriers" in California were not provided with meal and rest
periods, accurate wage statements, and appropriate pay upon
termination in violation of California law. The Farley plaintiffs
also assert a claim for unfair business practices and seek to
recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential
damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On September 15, 2016, the Farley plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking to recover penalties under the PAGA.

On October 19, 2016, the Company removed the matter to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Currently pending is the Company's motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Reached in "Debinder" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that the Company has
reached a settlement of the lawsuit by Matthew Debinder.

On August 2, 2016, a lawsuit entitled Matthew Debinder v.
Dolgencorp, LLC ("Debinder") was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
The Debinder plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and a putative
class of "applicants" that certain of the Company's background
check procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

The parties reached an agreement in October 2016 to resolve this
matter for an amount that is not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Motor Oil Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, In re Dollar General Corp.
Motor Oil Litigation.

In December 2015 and February, March, May and June 2016, the
Company was notified of several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs
allege violation of state consumer protection laws relating to the
labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor
oil.  Each of the lawsuits was filed in, or removed to, various
federal district courts of the United States (collectively "the
Motor Oil Lawsuits").

On June 2, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") granted the Company's motion to centralize the
Motor Oil Lawsuits in a matter styled In re Dollar General Corp.
Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("Motor Oil
MDL").  As a result of the JPML's order, the following cases have
been transferred to, and are currently part of, the Motor Oil MDL:
Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed
in the Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015)
("Barfoot"); William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
District Court for New Jersey on December 17, 2015) ("Flinn");
John Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky on February 10, 2016)
("Foppe"); Miriam Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on
February 10, 2016) ("Fruhling"); Kevin Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Southern District of New York on February 8, 2016)
("Gadson"); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern
District of Michigan on February 8, 2016) ("Gooel");  Janine
Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in
the District Court for Nebraska on February 10, 2016) ("Harvey");
Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016) ("Hill");
John J. McCormick, III v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District
Court of Maryland on December 23, 2015) ("McCormick"); Nicholas
Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in
the District of Kansas on February 9, 2016) ("Meyer"); Robert Oren
v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Western District of Missouri on February 8, 2016) ("Oren");
Brandon Raab v. Dolgencorp, LLC and Dollar General Corporation
(filed in the Western District of North Carolina on July 15,
2016); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail,
LLC (filed in the District Court for Minnesota on February 9,
2016) ("Sheehy"); Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) ("Sisemore");
Gerardo Solis v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC
(filed in the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016)
("Solis"); James Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on
March 15, 2016) ("Taschner"); Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Central District of California on February 8, 2016)
("Vega"); Matthew Wait v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Arkansas on
February 16, 2016) ("Wait"); and Jason Wood and Roger Barrows v.
Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of New York on May 9, 2016) ("Wood").

On August 29, 2016, as directed by the court, the plaintiffs in
the Motor Oil MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which
they seek to certify two nationwide classes and 16 statewide sub-
classes and for each putative class member some or all of the
following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The Company's responsive pleading to the consolidated amended
complaint was due to be filed on or before December 5, 2016.

The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its
private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state
requirements and is not misleading.  The Company further believes
that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar
treatment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these
actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict
whether any of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class
or the size of any putative class.  Likewise, at this time, it is
not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise.  For these
reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or
range of loss in these matters; however if the Company is not
successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these
actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a whole.


DOMFOAM/VALLE FOAM: Settlement Hearings to Begin on March 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
Purchasers of Polyurethane Foam Products* purchased in Canada
between January 1, 1999 and January 10, 2012, are part of a class
action

*Polyurethane Foam Products means flexible polyurethane foam that
is not molded foam or technical foam, and any and all products,
including carpet underlay, that contain flexible polyurethane foam
that is not molded foam or technical foam, except in the
Domfoam/Valle Foam and Woodbridge settlements and settlements with
certain individuals where it means all kinds of polyurethane foam
and all products which contain any kind of polyurethane foam.

Polyurethane foam is used in furniture, bedding, automotive
interiors, flooring including carpet underlay, and in many other
contexts.

The Actions

There are class action lawsuits certified/authorized across Canada
alleging that the makers of Polyurethane Foam Products fixed the
price of those products in Canada.  The defendants deny those
allegations.

The Courts have already approved a settlement with defendants
Domfoam/Valle Foam and certain individuals and $5,450,780.44 has
been recovered.  Additional money may still be received from
Domfoam/Valle Foam's insolvency and an assignment.

The Courts have also approved settlements with the defendants
Carpenter, Vitafoam, FFP/Flexible Foam, Future Foam, Hickory
Springs, Leggett & Platt, Mohawk Industries, Woodbridge and
certain individuals for a further recovery of $29,282,497.

The parties have now reached a new settlement with the remaining
defendants, Foamex Innovations, Inc., Foamex Innovations Canada
Inc., Les Industries Foamextra Inc. ("FXI") and certain
individuals for $2,450,000.

The Courts have certified/authorized the class actions against FXI
and certain individuals for settlement purposes. The deadline for
opting out of the class actions has already passed.

Who is affected?

Individuals and entities in Canada and related parties who
purchased Polyurethane Foam Products in Canada between January 1,
1999 and January 10, 2012, except for defendants and their related
parties, are settlement class members and are affected by the
settlement and the certifications/authorization against FXI and
certain individuals.

This new settlement provides benefits to settlement class members
in return for a release of the settling defendants and others from
claims regarding Polyurethane Foam Products purchased in Canada.

What happens next?

The Courts will now be asked to approve this new settlement and
the lawyers' fees.  If the new settlement is not approved by the
Courts, the class actions will continue against the FXI settling
defendants.  If the Courts approve this new settlement, class
members will be bound by it.  The hearings will be:

in Vancouver, BC on March 6, 2017 at 10 a.m.;
in Laval, Qu‚bec on March 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.; and
in London, Ontario on April 12, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

The lawyers will ask the Courts for approval of a fee of 25% of
these additional settlement funds achieved plus taxes and case
expenses.  The amount that is approved by the Courts as fair and
reasonable will be deducted from the settlement funds.

How will the money be distributed to Settlement Class Members?

A proposed distribution protocol has been finalized by the lawyers
in consultation with economic and industry experts and the Courts
will be asked to approve that distribution protocol and a
settlement administration protocol at the settlement approval
hearings.

The money will be distributed to settlement class members who
purchased certain Polyurethane Foam Products in Canada between
January 1, 1999 and January 10, 2012.  No money will be paid for
purchases of molded or technical flexible polyurethane foam and
products which contain molded or technical flexible polyurethane
foam.

The distribution protocol will be posted on this website at
https://is.gd/VQ0Nn6

A new notice will also be published when the claims process
commences.

Settlement class members should retain all proof of purchase of
Polyurethane Foam Products in Canada between January 1, 1999 and
January 10, 2012 and monitor this website for updated information
on the settlement approvals and the future claims process.  If you
would like direct notice of steps relating to the distribution
protocol, contact the lawyers for the class at the email addresses
below.

Can I exclude myself from the Class Actions?

No. The right to opt out of the class actions was provided when
the actions were certified/authorized by the Courts in relation to
the Domfoam/Valle Foam settlement approval.  The deadline has
already passed.

What if I don't like the new settlements, the distribution
protocol or the lawyers' fee request?

You can object. If you think the new settlement, the proposed
distribution protocol, or the lawyers' request for fees and
expenses are unfair, you can write to the Courts.  If you wish to
do so, you need to send your objection to the lawyers at the
address below by March 1, 2017.  Objections and inquiries should
not be sent directly to the Courts.  The lawyers will organize and
provide all the material to the Courts for you.

You may also attend a hearing and ask to speak to the Court.
Please contact the lawyers at the information below if you want to
attend one of these hearings.

Contact information for the lawyers for the class:

BC residents: Branch MacMaster LLP at chermanson@branmac.com, and
Camp Fiorante Mathews Mogerman at polyfoam@cfmlawyers.ca
Quebec residents: Belleau Lapointe at
membres@recourscollectif.info
All others: Sutts Strosberg LLP at polyclassaction@strosbergco.com

Settlement Class Members should monitor the websites for updated
information and future claims process.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Approves $50MM Settlement for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson at Variety reports a federal judge has given the
greenlight to a $50 million settlement of a class action lawsuit
brought by animation workers against DreamWorks Animation,
claiming that the studio violated antitrust laws by conspiring to
set animation wages via non-poaching agreements.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh gave her preliminary approval to the
settlement on Thursday, and said the settlement was "fair and
reasonable."

The settlement provides for a cash payment of $50 million to a
class-action fund. The named plaintiffs, Robert Nitsch, David
Wentworth, and Georgia Cano, had already reached settlement
agreements with Sony Imageworks and Blue Sky Studios.

Other defendants in the case are the The Walt Disney Company,
Lucasfilm, Pixar, and ImageMovers, whose cases are still pending.

Koh noted that DreamWorks Animation "has independently agreed to
cooperate with plaintiffs in authenticating documents, and in not
voluntarily producing any employee to testify at trial for any
non-settling defendant."

Under the terms of the proposed DreamWorks settlement, the class
includes certain animation and visual effects workers who worked
at DreamWorks from 2004 to 2010; Pixar from 2004 to 2010;
Lucasfilm from 2004 to 2010; The Walt Disney Co. from 2004 to
2010; Sony Pictures Animation and Sony Pictures Imageworks from
2004 to 2010; Blue Sky from 2005 to 2010; and ImageMovers from
2007 to 2010.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are allowed to ask for up to 25% of
settlement funds for attorneys fees, and each of the named
plaintiffs would receive up to $10,000 each. Exact payments for
each employee will be based on a formula, posted on the class
action website. The final fairness hearing is scheduled for May
18.

The lawsuit was filed by Nitsch, a former DreamWorks Animation
senior character effects artist; Wentworth, a former ImageMovers
Digital production engineer; and Cano, a digital artist who held
jobs at Rhythm & Hues, Walt Disney Feature Animation, and
ImageMovers Digital.

In its settlement, Sony agreed to pay $13 million to the
settlement fund, and Blue Sky agreed to contribute $5.95 million.

The workers contend that the roots of the anti-poaching agreements
go back to the mid-1980s, when George Lucas and Ed Catmull, the
president of Steve Jobs' newly formed company Pixar, agreed to not
raid each other's employees.
Other companies then joined the conspiracy, the suit contended,
with agreements on such things as cold calling and notifying each
other when making an offer to an employee of another company.


EAST POINT, GA: Court Approves Power Overbilling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
WGCL reports that a court has approved a class action lawsuit
against the city of East Point for allegedly overcharging for
power.

The court's approval was confirmed by CBS46 reporter Adam Murphy.

Outraged residents filed the lawsuit in 2016, accusing their
government of putting profits over people.

An attorney representing residents says the city has collected
millions of dollars from overbilling during the past decade and
placed the money in a general fund.

The city responded by saying their actions are justified.


ENTERTAINMENT ONE: Faces Class Action Over Sirius XM Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee, writing for Law360, reports that a string trio and an
entertainment company filed a putative class action against
independent record label Entertainment One GP LLC in New York
federal court on Jan. 17, claiming that the label failed to report
revenue from digital entertainment media distribution to Sirius XM
Radio.

Time for Three, a Pennsylvania-based group that calls itself a
"classical garage band," and California-based Fooseaoke LLC, which
does business as S'more Entertainment, allege in a complaint that
Entertainment One and its predecessor-in-interest, Koch
Entertainment LP, entered into "secret negotiations and
agreements" with Sirius XM to exploit the plaintiffs' intellectual
property and failed to pay the proposed class revenue generated
from that avenue.

"Defendants have systematically, knowingly and intentionally
withheld and failed to account for and pay for revenue generated
from Sirius XM plaintiffs and other class members," states the
complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, an accounting and declaratory
relief.

The allegations are based on a December 2008 licensing agreement
and a November 2010 distribution agreement that Time for Three and
S'More respectively entered into with Koch and Entertainment One.

The licensing agreement with Koch runs for 10 years and sets out
the royalty compensation structure the label would pay to Time for
Three.  The distribution agreement grants Entertainment One the
right to distribute musical works for S'More Entertainment and was
amended in January 2011 to incorporate digital entertainment media
distribution to Sirius XM, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the distribution agreement required
Entertainment One and Koch to account for revenue generated from
digital entertainment media distribution and pay S'more
Entertainment a portion of those revenues.

Under the agreements, the record label agreed to pay class members
in exchange for the rights to distribute the musical works through
various media such as hard copy records and digital downloads
through iTunes and Amazon, streaming services like Spotify and
Pandora and digital satellite radio like Sirius XM.

However, the plaintiffs allege that the label "secretly withheld"
revenues generated from Sirius XM from the putative class members,
causing them substantial damages.

The number of the proposed class totals more than 100, according
to the suit, and is comprised of all persons and entities and
other parties who were parties to the licensing or distribution
agreements with Entertainment One that included digital
entertainment media distribution rights and whose musical works
were played on Sirius XM.

A representative for the plaintiffs declined to comment on
Jan. 17.  A representative for Entertainment One did not
immediately respond to request for comment.

The proposed class is represented by Michael R. Reese and George
V. Granade of Reese LLP and Neville L. Johnson, Douglas L. Johnson
-- djohnson@jjllplaw.com -- and Jordanna G. Thigpen --
jthigpen@jjllplaw.com -- of Johnson & Johnson LLP and Clifford H.
Pearson, Daniel L. Warshaw and Bobby Pouya of Pearson Simon &
Warshaw LLP.

Counsel information for Entertainment One was not immediately
available on Jan. 17.

The case is Time for Three LLC et al. v. Entertainment One GP LLC
et al., case number 1:17-cv-00329, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.


ERIN ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss to Dismiss Stockholders Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing on
defendants' motions to dismiss a class action complaint was set
for January 18, 2017.

The Company said, "On February 5, 2016, a class action and
derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court
purportedly on behalf of the Company and on behalf of a putative
class of persons who were stockholders as of the date the Company
(1) acquired the Allied Assets pursuant to the Transfer Agreement
and (2) issued shares to the Public Investment Corporation (SOC)
Limited, a state-owned company incorporated in the Republic of
South Africa ("PIC") in a private placement (collectively the
"February 2014 Transactions"). The complaint alleges the February
2014 Transactions were unfair to the Company and purports to
assert derivative claims against (1) the seven individuals who
served on our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions
and (2) our majority shareholder, CEHL. The complaint also
purports to assert a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim on
behalf of the putative class against the seven individuals who
served on our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions
on the grounds that they purportedly caused the Company to
disseminate a false and misleading proxy statement in connection
with the February 2014 Transactions, and a direct claim for aiding
and abetting against Dr. Kase Lawal, the former Executive Chairman
of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company. The plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of the Company and
the putative class, an undisclosed amount of compensatory
damages."

"The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom
the plaintiff seeks no recovery.

"On March 3, 2016, all of the defendants, including the Company,
filed motions to dismiss the complaint. A hearing on this motion
has been set for January 18, 2017."

Erin Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is an independent
oil and gas exploration and production company focused on energy
resources in Africa. Our strategy is to acquire and develop high-
potential exploration and production assets in Africa.


FENIX PARTS: Faces "Beezley" Suit Alleging Securities Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA BEEZLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. FENIX PARTS, INC., KENT ROBERTSON, and
SCOTT PETTIT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00233 (D.N.J., January
12, 2017), is a securities suit that alleges among others that
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company had an inadequate inventory
valuation methodology; and (2) the Company had an inadequate
methodology to calculate goodwill impairment.

FENIX PARTS, INC. owns full service and self service recycling
yards throughout the USA and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Phone: (973) 313-1887
     Fax: (973) 833-0399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


FENIX PARTS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fenix Parts, Inc. ("Fenix"
or the "Company") (FENX) and certain of its officers, and is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Fenix securities between May 14, 2015 and October 12,
2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are advised to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/fenx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fenix had an insufficient inventory valuation
methodology; (2) Fenix had an incompetent methodology to calculate
goodwill impairment; (3) Fenix was involved and/or had been
involved in conduct that would result in an SEC investigation; and
(4) consequently, Defendants' statements about Fenix's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/fenx,or you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Fenix, you have until March 13, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Emission Software Class Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit seeking $250 million in damages on behalf
of Canadian purchasers of 2014-2016 diesel Jeep Grand Cherokees
and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks (the "Vehicles") was commenced on
January 16, 2017 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The class action alleges that on January 12, 2017, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued a notice of
violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. ("FCA NV") and to FCA
US LLC ("FCA") for alleged violations of law resulting from the
installation and failure to disclose engine management software
that resulted in increased emissions of nitrogen oxide from the
vehicles.

The class action brought against FCA NV, FCA and FCA Canada Inc.
("FCA Canada") alleges that Canadian purchasers of the Vehicles
were deceived by the defendants' failure to disclose the presence
of this software, resulting in losses and damage to members of the
class.

A copy of the Notice of Action can be found on the Sotos LLP
website at https://is.gd/fprRzu.  Canadian purchasers of 2014-2016
diesel Jeep Grand Cherokees or Dodge Ram 1500 trucks can access
the website at https://is.gd/l9DgZB to register to obtain further
information about the class action.

The plaintiff and the proposed national class are being
represented by Sotos LLP.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Rosenberg Law Probing Emissions-Cheating Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosenberg Law is investigating a potential class action against
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV on behalf of owners of 2014, 2015,
2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 litre
diesel engines.

The investigation concerns the possible use by Fiat Chrysler of
emissions-cheating devices resulting in unlawfully-high emissions
levels in the automaker's diesel cars.  On January 12, 2017, the
Environmental Protection Agency issued a "notice of violation" to
Fiat Chrysler citing more than 104,000 vehicles with 3-litre
diesel engines including the 2014, 2015, 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee
and Dodge Ram pickups.

If you purchased or leased one of these vehicles, please contact
Rosenberg Law by e-mail at dmoriarty@rosenberglaw.ca to discuss
the possibility of bringing a claim.

Rosenberg Law is a B.C. class actions firm.  It was the first law
firm to bring a class action to the British Columbia Court of
Appeal under the Class Proceedings Act.


FOOT CENTER: Faces "Brown" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY BROWN, 101 Waldon Road, Abingdon, Maryland 21009,
Resident of Harford County, Plaintiff, Individually and on Behalf
of All Similarly Situated Employees v. DRS. COHEN & NORTON, P.A.,
D/B/A THE FOOT CENTER OF BEL AIR, 2208 Old Emmorton Road, Suite
101, Bel Air, Maryland 21015, Serve: Adam J. Chavis, R.A., 14
Blacksmith Court, Baltimore, MD 21136 and DR. PHILLIP M. COHEN,
3600 Anton Farms Road, Pikesville, MD 21208, Resident of Baltimore
County and DR. NANCY M. NORTON, 805 Champions Court, Reisterstown,
MD, 21136, Resident of Baltimore County, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00108-JKB (D. Md., January 12, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act; unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
Maryland Code Annotated, Labor & Employment; and unpaid wages,
treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Maryland Code
Annotated, Labor & Employment.

Defendant is in the podiatric medical practice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Kuga Fire Victim's Family Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gia Nicolaides, writing for Eyewitness, reports that the family of
the man who burnt to death in his Ford Kuga in 2015 have announced
they will be bringing a class-action lawsuit against the car
manufacturer.

Reshall Jimmy's brother and sister held a press briefing in
Pretoria on Jan. 17 after the car manufacturer announced it was
recalling the Kuga 1.6 litre model as several vehicles have caught
alight.

On Jan. 16, Ford and the National Consumer Commission recalled the
1.6 Kuga made between December 2012 and February 2014 due to
overheating issues.

Ford maintains that there have been no injuries, and that the 2015
case involving Jimmy was unique and unrelated.

On Jan. 16 Ford SA CEO Jeff Nemeth explained that Jimmy's death
had nothing to do with the recent problem identified with the
Kugas.

"While the case of Mr Jimmy's vehicle has not been determined. All
investigating parties have ruled out an engine compartment fire."

Attorney Rod Montano says he'll be acting on behalf of victims to
bring a class action against Ford, with 31 claims submitted to the
NCC to date.

Jimmy says since his brother's death he has been trying to get
answers from Ford and share relevant information with the
manufacturer's investigative team, but says he's received very
little co-operation.

Over 30 motorists who have been affected by the Ford Kuga catching
alight will also be bringing a class action against the car
manufacturer.

Renisha and Kaveen Jimmy say they're only partially satisfied
about Ford's announcement to recall the vehicle.

Renisha says she doesn't believe this recall is enough to protect
motorists.

"I don't see very much of a difference to what they have done over
the period of December because people are taking their cars in and
my biggest concern is people did this in December, and cars burnt
after so for me they should have taken these cars off the roads."

Kaveen says Ford made no effort to contact the family after his
brother's death and they have evidence that the fire started in
the front of the vehicle.

The attorney representing the Jimmy's Rod Montano says he'll be
representing the 30 motorists to bring a class action against
Ford.


FORD MOTOR: Motor Industry Calls for Action on Kuga Fires
---------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Knowler, writing for HeraldLive, reports that "Ford must act
-- now!" said Motor Industry Ombud Johan van Vreden on
Jan. 16.

"This is a first for me in my 16 years as ombudsman," he said.

"One or two vehicles in the same model range catching fire is not
unusual, but almost 50 . . .it's crazy, especially in a small
market like ours."

Regardless of the outcome of the investigation into the cause of
the Ford Kuga fire in which Reshall Jimmy was killed in December
2015, Mr. Van Vreden said, the other 46 Kuga fires all appear to
have started in the engine compartment, requiring Ford to take
immediate "appropriate action" within the recall policies of Ford
and the Consumer Protection Act.

"I hope that at the press conference they reveal very clearly what
they propose to do."

There are different forms of recall in the motor industry.

A service recall is actioned in the case of an issue which is not
what the industry terms safety critical, and it's carried out
during a routine service, often without the owner's knowledge.

But a safety recall, due to what the industry terms a "safety
critical" issue such as dozens of vehicles catching alight -- is
clearly far more serious.

It is actioned voluntarily by the manufacturer or as a result of
being forced to by an authority such as the National Consumer
Commission (NCC).

The manufacturer undertakes the responsibility and total cost of
fixing the problem, replacing the vehicle or buying it back,
depending on the issue and the circumstances.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

"The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is clear, in terms of Section
61 that there is strict liability for any damage or harm caused by
a product which is unsafe when supplied or which has an inherent
hazard or a defect," says CPA and product liability specialist
attorney Janusz Luterek.

"This liability extends beyond replacement of the vehicle to any
harm or damage caused and economic loss suffered by the owner,
passengers, family or potentially even other members of the public
or rescue services who are affected by it.

"These claims could be very large indeed and include loss of
income in the case of injury and loss of support in the case of a
death.

"A burning Kuga could also lead to a larger fire in a mall or in
dense traffic causing untold harm and exposing Ford to huge
liability."

The CPA also provides for class action lawsuits, Mr. Luterek said.

Attorney Rod Montano, who represents the owners of most of the
Kugas which have caught fire, said such a class action is indeed
being planned.

On Jan. 16, along with the siblings of Reshall Jimmy, he tried to
hand over written complaints from the 46 Kuga fire victims at the
offices of the NCC, but was denied access and ordered off the
property by Commission spokesman Trevor Hattingh.

Mr. Hattingh told The Times it was simply a matter of them not
having made an appointment.

The complainants are urging the NCC to recall the 1.6-litre Kuga,
as a precursor to lodging a civil claim against the company as a
class action.

Mr. Luterek said there may also be both criminal and civil
liability for the directors and other officers of Ford South
Africa under the Companies Act of 2013, "especially where they
have intentionally or negligently failed to recall a vehicle which
has been shown to be a hazard and in which at least one person has
already died".

"What is more alarming is the disdain Ford South Africa has for
South Africans -- whereas Ford in the USA recalled the Ford Escape
(Kuga in South Africa) due to fire risk after 13 fires with no
injuries, it fails to do the same here in the face of 45 fires and
one death."

The Ford Pinto scandal

For many, the burning Ford Kuga issue brings to mind a
particularly scandalous chapter of Ford's history -- that of the
Ford Pinto in the late 70s.

Due to the poor design of the fuel tank, the car -- the biggest
selling sub-compact car in the US at the time -- tended to burst
into flames when crashed into from behind.

It emerged in civil trials that Ford waited eight years to
re-design the fuel tank because its internal "cost-benefit
analysis" -- which placed a dollar value on human life -- said it
wasn't profitable to make the changes sooner.

Twenty-seven people died in Pinto fires; among them three
teenagers.  In August 1978, sisters Judy (18) and Lynn Ulrich (16)
and their cousin Donna Ulrich (18) were travelling on a highway in
Indiana when their Ford Pinto was struck from behind by a van. The
Pinto's petrol tank ruptured and all three were burnt to death.

Times reader Joy Donovan said the Ford Pinto story was part of her
business ethics class at UCT.

"Most notable was that Ford actually worked out the cost of a
human life and found that it was cheaper to settle each claim as
it happened, rather than institute a mass recall," she said.

In September 1978 -- a month after the Ulrich teenagers died in a
Pinto fire, Ford finally issued a recall for 1.5 million 1971-76
Pinto sedans and Runabouts, plus all similar 1975-76 Mercury
Bobcats, for a safety repair.

While Ford was acquitted of criminal charges, it lost several
million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the
barbecue that seats four".

In his book Talking Straight, former Ford exec Lee Iacocca wrote:
"Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late '70s when we were
bombarded with suits over the Pinto, which was involved in a lot
of gas tank fires.

"The suits might have bankrupted the company, so we kept our
mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might
have construed as an admission of guilt.

"Winning in court was our top priority; nothing else mattered.
"And of course, our silence added to all the suspicions people had
about us and the car."


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Castillo Sues Over Desonide Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR CASTILLO, INC., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC.,
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, PERRIGO NEW
YORK, INC., SANDOZ, INC., and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00250 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2017,
alleges a conspiracy by Defendants to artificially fix, raise,
maintain and/or stabilize the prices of generic desonide.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a specialty dermatology generic
pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
     Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
     NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10036-8718
     Phone: (917) 438-9195
     E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

        - and -

     Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq.
     JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC
     Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602
     Guaynabo, PR 00968
     Phone: (787) 751-5290
     E-mail: juan@riverafont.com


GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf at Law360 reports Golden Corral Corp. may offer
customers an endless buffet, but it has shown itself to be less
bountiful to those it employs as associate managers by wrongfully
exempting them from federal and state overtime pay requirements,
according to a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania federal court on
January 18.

The buffet-style restaurant chain was hit with a class and
collective action by two former associate managers claiming they
primarily performed the same tasks as hourly employees, but were
misclassified as exempt workers. As a result, they and others did
not receive overtime compensation despite regularly being required
to work more than 40 hours a week, according to the suit.

Plaintiffs Scott Hinterleiter and Shawn Click, who respectively
worked as associate managers at Golden Corral locations in Erie,
Pennsylvania, and Louisville, Kentucky, say the company violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying them as exempt
employees, willfully failing to pay associate managers overtime
wages and willfully failing to record all of the time that its
employees have worked.

"Defendant was aware that plaintiffs and the class members worked
more than 40 hours per workweek, yet defendant failed to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek," the
complaint states.

Hinterleiter and Click allege that those employed as "kitchen
associate managers" and "hospitality managers" at any one of
Golden Corral's approximately 94 locations nationwide primarily do
the same work as non-exempt employees. These tasks include cooking
and preparing food, taking out trash, washing dishware, refilling
buffet food, unpacking supplies, cleaning and serving customers,
they said.

The primary duties of those in the associate manager position
"were not directly related to defendant's management or general
business operations" and "did not include the exercise of
discretion or independent judgment regarding matters of
significance," the plaintiffs said.

The complaint alleges violations of the FLSA and wage laws from
both Pennsylvania and Kentucky. The plaintiffs aim to bring an
opt-in collective action under the federal law and certify two
separate classes of those who currently or formerly worked as
associate managers at a Golden Corral in either Pennsylvania or
Kentucky.

The FLSA and Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Law would cover employees
that worked for a period of time after March 14, 2013, while the
Kentucky Wage Laws would cover employees that worked after March
14, 2011.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages and other monetary
awards and an order that would require Golden Corral to cease its
overtime exemption of associate managers.

Golden Corral did not immediately provide a comment on the
allegations in the suit when contacted on January 19.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld and Peter
Winebrake of Winebrake & Santillo LLC, Justin M. Swartz, --
jswartz@outtengolden.com -- Melissa L. Stewart, --
mstewart@outtengolden.com --  and Christopher M. McNerney, --
cmcnerney@outtengolden.com --  of Outten & Golden LLP, and Gregg
I. Shavitz, -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com --  and Michael Palitz, --
mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- of Shavitz Law Group PA.

Counsel information for Golden Corral was not immediately
available on January 19.

The case is Hintleiter et al. v. Golden Corral Corp., case number
1:17-cv-00014, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.


GRAIN PROCESSING: Seeks to Overturn Class Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Rodgers, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that a
defense attorney for a Muscatine corn processing plant is asking
the Iowa Supreme Court to block a class-action lawsuit brought by
residents who claim the plant has long spewed smoke, haze and
pollutants over their homes.

The lawsuit brought by eight residents was approved by a district
court judge in 2015 to represent a group of more than 4,000 people
who've lived near a corn wet mill owned by Grain Processing Corp.
The lawsuit claims that pollution from the plant has blown onto
properties in the city's south end, leaving foul smells and
fueling fears about cancer and other health problems.

But Michael Reck, a Des Moines attorney representing the company,
asked Iowa justices during oral arguments on Jan. 18 to overturn
the ruling certifying the case as a class action.  That would be a
blow to the Muscatine residents who've pursued the lawsuit for
years.

"Without the class, it really becomes difficult for the folks
impacted to seek justice and accountability," said
Josh Mandelbaum, a staff attorney at the Environmental Law and
Policy Center in Des Moines who has followed the litigation.  "I
think a case like this and the fact that there continue to be
concerns from the community reflects questions about whether or
not there's been sufficient accountability for GPC's actions."

However, Mr. Reck argued that attorneys for the group of property
owners plan to prove their case at trial using testimony from yet
unnamed Muscatine residents who live around the plant, but aren't
named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  That's a sign that the
plaintiffs' attorneys believe testimony from the eight residents
alone won't be enough to prove that everybody living around the
plant suffered similar harms from emissions -- a fundamental
aspect of class-action law, Mr. Reck told the seven justices.

"There are a couple of things that are clearly, clearly wrong
here," he said.  "You do not get to say that, 'Our class
representatives cannot prove liability class-wide, so we're going
to pick unidentified individuals to carry that burden elsewhere.'"

It's "alarming" that attorneys for Grain Processing still don't
not know which Muscatine residents might be called to testify, Mr.
Reck said.  That uncertainty is hampering the company's ability to
prepare a defense. For instance, defense attorneys cannot contact
residents in the area to ask about their experiences with
pollution, because they are also members of the class and are
represented by the plaintiffs' attorneys, he said.

But Sarah Siskind, a Wisconsin consumer protection and
environmental attorney representing the residents, told the
justices that the company's fears are unfounded.  Mr. Reck and
other lawyers for Grain Processing will have an opportunity to
take depositions of every witness and then cross-examine them at
trial, she said.

Ms. Siskind defended using witnesses from the area other than the
named plaintiffs to help prove the group's case.  The plant
belched out smoke and odor that was known to every resident in the
area, regardless of whether some houses were more affected, she
said.

"Virtually everyone in the class knew about the nuisance," she
said.  "This was an open and notorious nuisance."

The Jan. 18 oral arguments were the second time the case has gone
to the Supreme Court since it was filed in 2012.  The court in
2014 overturned a previous ruling in favor of the company that
dismissed the case. Currently, the class includes everybody who
lived within 1 1/2 miles of the wet mill since 2007.

Grain Processing produces a variety of products -- from corn syrup
and starches to ethyl alcohol sold to the beverage industry --
using the corn wet mill in Muscatine and another facility in
Indiana.  But the family company has been troubled for years by
accusations that it knowingly used outmoded dryers and coal-fired
boilers that left a blue haze over the eastern Iowa town of
22,887.

A district court judge in 2014 ordered Grain Processing to pay a
record $1.5 million civil penalty to the state as part of a
lawsuit brought by the Iowa Attorney General's Office that accused
the plant of pumping out excess particulate matter and failing to
repair equipment that could have prevented the pollution.  The
company also agreed to switch from using coal to power its boilers
to cleaner-burning natural gas and to install other air pollution
control systems.

The investigative journalism nonprofit Center for Public Integrity
in September ranked the Muscatine plant 91st on a list of the
nation's top 100 producers of airborne toxins, following an
analysis of air quality data from the federal government. In
response to that report, Grain Processing spokesperson Janet
Sichterman said the company cut its emissions of toxic chemicals
in half from 2014 to 2015.

"Muscatine is our home, and cleaner air is a commitment GPC made,"
Ms. Sichterman told The Des Moines Register at that time.

Justice Edward Mansfield and Justice Brent Appel asked Mr. Reck
similar questions about why disagreements over issues such as
expert testimony and differences in class members' experiences
should be decided by the court, rather than just hashed out at a
trial.  "There's never any kind of perfect class action frankly,
ever," Justice Appel said.

Class-actions have generally been disparaged by businesses and
lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who argue
that the lawsuits enrich attorneys while the people they represent
often get little from damage awards.  But consumer protection
groups and others argue that class-actions are an important
vehicle for holding companies and governments accountable when
their actions cause smaller damages to large groups of people.

Justice Thomas Waterman indicated that he might look to a May 2016
federal court ruling in a similar lawsuit against General Mills
for guidance. In that case, a group of three Minnesota residents
won class certification for their lawsuit against the food company
for vapors that were released from a former factory in their
Minneapolis neighborhood.  But a panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that differences in
contamination between different properties were too much for a
class-action to proceed.

Mr. Reck urged the justices to make a similar ruling in favor of
Grain Processing, while Ms. Siskind argued that there were flaws
in the federal court's ruling.


HARVEST NATURAL: Plaintiffs Declined to Appeal Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
plaintiffs have declined to file an appeal on the dismissal of the
Phillips case.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013)
(the "Phillips Case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro',
Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray
and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest
Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes
(April 11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan
Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and
Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and
the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The
complaints alleged that the defendants made certain false or
misleading public statements and demanded that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines.

All of these actions were consolidated into the Phillips Case.

On August 25, 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Phillips Case and entered a final judgment dismissing
the Phillips Case in its entirety. The plaintiffs declined to file
an appeal, and the time for the filing an appeal expired on
September 26, 2016.


HARVEST NATURAL: Stockholder to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
Robert Garfield will dismiss a class action lawsuit without
prejudice.

On August 9, 2016, Robert Garfield, a stockholder of the Company,
filed a lawsuit in the 215th Civil District Court of Harris
County, Texas against the members of the Company's board of
directors (the "Board") and CT Energy (and the Company, as a
nominal defendant).  The lawsuit asserts several class action and
derivative claims, including that (i) the Board members breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by
negotiating and causing the execution of the Share Purchase
Agreement, (ii) CT Energy aided and abetted the Board members in
breaching their fiduciary duties and (iii) the Proxy Statement
contained inadequate disclosures about the proposed transaction.
Among other relief, the lawsuit requests that the court grant an
injunction to prevent the completion of the proposed transaction,
in addition to unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

"We are unable to estimate the amount or range of any possible
loss.  On September 14, 2016 plaintiff's motion for a temporary
injunction was denied.  On November 3, 2016, we learned that the
plaintiff will dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice," the
Company said.


I-12 MEDIAN: Livingston School Board Joins Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Kinchen at The Advocate reports that the Livingston Parish
School Board voted unanimously on January 19 to join a class-
action lawsuit against the state over construction of the
Interstate 12 median wall that some officials say worsened
flooding on the north side of the highway in August.

The School Board is the third public entity to join the lawsuit,
which was filed Jan. 5 in Baton Rouge state court. The cities of
Denham Springs and Walker already were named plaintiffs in the
case. Their lawyers at deGravelles Palmintier are in talks with
officials from Livingston Parish government and the city of
Central about signing on as well.

Attorney Joshua Palmintier with deGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus
and Fruge said each agency that joins the lawsuit lends additional
legitimacy to the case, which claims the 19-mile concrete barrier
between the eastbound and westbound lanes of I-12 acted as a dam,
impeding the natural flow of water during the flood.

Schools Superintendent Rick Wentzel, who already signed onto the
lawsuit personally, recommended the School Board join in the
effort to convince the state Department of Transportation and
Development to fix the problem and halt plans to "continue use of
this current flawed (wall) design" as the interstate widening
project moves eastward through the rest of the parish.

The August flood devastated several of the parish's schools, three
of which remain closed for reconstruction, and impacted businesses
and residential properties that provide a tax base for the school
system, Wentzel said. Continuing the wall eastward through the
parish could have an even heavier financial impact on the
district, he said.

Board member Sid Kinchen, of Albany, asked whether the lawsuit
would temporarily halt the state's work to widen I-12 east of
Satsuma.

Palmintier said that is one of the lawsuit's goals, but a judge
would have to order the work halted. It won't happen
automatically.

Board member Buddy Mincey Jr., of Denham Springs, asked whether
there had been any movement from the state since the lawsuit was
filed.

"We have not heard from the state as of yet," Palmintier said. "We
hope to hear very soon. I believe that discussions could begin as
early as early February."

Palmintier said class-action lawsuits can take years to resolve,
but he hopes the work the firm is doing with its team of
hydrologists -- who are modeling the effects of the wall on flood
levels throughout the area -- will help shorten that timeframe.
The lawyers are pushing for the state to fix the existing wall
before the next hurricane season.


IKEA USA: 9th Cir. Vacates Order to Decertify in "Medellin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated
and remanded the District Court's order decertifying the putative
class action lawsuit titled RITA MEDELLIN, On Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. IKEA
U.S.A. WEST, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-55174 (9th
Cir.).

Rita Medellin has appealed the order entered by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California decertifying her
putative class action alleging violations of California's Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.  Ms. Medellin concedes that she
alleged only a bare procedural violation of the statute and
suffered no other cognizable harm.

A plaintiff cannot "allege a bare procedural violation, divorced
from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement
of Article III," according to the Order, citing Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016).

"Because Medellin lacks standing, we vacate the district court's
judgment and remand with instructions that the district court
dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of standing," the
Ninth Circuit states.

The Ninth Circuit also ruled that the motions pending at docket
numbers 22 and 37 are denied as moot, and each party will bear its
own costs on appeal.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/xnp3kL from Leagle.com.


ILLUMINA INC: Feb. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Illumina, Inc. Investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between July 26, 2016 and October 10, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
prior to the February 15, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Illumina during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or via e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com --

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Illumina made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. In particular, Illumina made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose: that
the Company was experiencing a sharp decrease in sequencing
instrument sales; that the decline had a significant impact on the
Company's revenue; that the Company did not have visibility into
trends that could have an impact on the Company's financial
outcomes; that, as such, the Company's revenue guidance was
unreliable and exaggerated; and that, as a result of the above,
Illumina's statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, at no charge, or if
you have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or via e-mail at --
joon@khanglaw.com --

         Khang & Khang LLP
         Joon M. Khang, Esq.
         Telephone: 949-419-3834
         Fax: 949-225-4474
         E-mail: joon@khanglaw.com


INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in "Makover" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ineedmd Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and its
board of directors are currently involved in litigation against
Michael E. Makover, M.D. ("Makover").

On April 30, 2015, Makover filed a class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging claims
including breaches of fiduciary duties. On October 29, 2015, by
agreement of the parties, the class action complaint was withdrawn
and a first amended verified complaint was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware with Makover as the sole
plaintiff.

On August 22, 2016 the Company and Makover participated in a
meditation which resulted in an agreement which would provide for
the issuance of 2,500,000 shares of the Company's common stock to
Makover and a payment of $100,000 by the Company to Makover. The
stock issuance and payment are contingent upon the Company
securing additional financing.


INTERSIL CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2016, that
Intersil made supplemental disclosures (this "Proxy Supplement")
to the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy
Statement") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") by Intersil on October 31, 2016, to provide additional
information relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (as it
may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"), dated
September 12, 2016, by and between Renesas Electronics
Corporation, a Japanese corporation ("Parent" or "Renesas"), and
Intersil. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement, Chapter One Company ("Merger Sub"), which was formed
following the date of the Merger Agreement as a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, will,
at the closing, merge with and into Intersil (the "Merger"), and
Intersil will become a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

Following the filing of the Proxy Statement with the SEC on
October 31, 2016, two putative class action lawsuits relating to
the Merger were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware on behalf of putative classes of Intersil's public
shareholders: Paskowitz v. Intersil Corporation, et al., C.A. No.
12861-VCG, filed October 31, 2016, and Zucker v. Intersil
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 12862-VCG, filed October 31, 2016,
which were subsequently consolidated (collectively, the
"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit alleges that certain disclosures in the
Proxy Statement were false or misleading and seeks to enjoin the
Merger.

Intersil denies the allegations in the Lawsuit, but nonetheless
provides the disclosures as a supplement to the Proxy Statement.
To the extent that information set forth below differs from
information contained in the Proxy Statement, the information set
forth below supersedes such information contained in the Proxy
Statement. These supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement
shall not be deemed an admission that they are material or
required under the federal securities laws, any applicable state
fiduciary law or any other applicable rule, statue, regulation or
law. The Lawsuit remains pending as of the date of this Proxy
Supplement.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, a special meeting was to be
held on December 8, 2016, at 8:00 a.m., Pacific time, at
Intersil's headquarters at 1001 Murphy Ranch Road, Milpitas,
California 95035, for the purpose of considering and voting upon,
among other things, the Merger Agreement and the Merger.

On December 8, Intersil announced that Intersil stockholders
approved the merger agreement with Renesas Electronics Corporation
(TSE: 6723).  Intersil said the merger remains subject to the
satisfaction of certain other conditions, including antitrust
approval by the China government and approval by the Committee on
Foreign Investment (CFIUS) in the United States. The transaction
is expected to close during the first half of 2017.


JANNSEN PHARMA: Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of Invokana Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
more than 100 plaintiffs with cases pending in Pennsylvania
federal court over claims that the diabetes drug Invokana caused
kidney damage are challenging the drugmaker's efforts to move
those cases into a recently-established multidistrict litigation
in New Jersey.

Drugmakers Janssen Pharmaceuticals recently filed a motion seeking
to stay and then transfer or dismiss 106 cases that had been filed
in Pennsylvania state court and later removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs
responded to those efforts on Jan. 9, arguing that the transfer
would go against "virtually all of" the factors courts should
consider.

"In particular, (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum should be
given weight because there is a nexus between Pennsylvania and the
allegations in the case; (2) the purported convenience that
defendants rest on will not be realized because there are a number
of cases that cannot be transferred for diversity jurisdiction;
(3) the proposed new location is less convenient for nonparty
witnesses; and (4) other factors weigh against transfer, including
the convenience of the parties weighed against financial
condition, and the relative congestion of the two districts at
issue," the plaintiffs' reply filed in the case Portnoff v.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals said.

Lopez McHugh attorney Joshua Mankoff filed the reply in Portnoff.
He declined to comment beyond the filing.

Kaitlin Meiser, a spokeswoman for Janssen, said the company is
committed to defending against the allegations, and transferring
the cases to promote efficiency.

"We believe that these cases should then either be transferred to
the District of New Jersey where the federal multidistrict
litigation is pending to promote efficiency for all parties, or
dismissed outright on numerous grounds," she said in an emailed
statement.

The plaintiffs' reply comes about a month after the Judicial Panel
for Multidistrict Litigation authorized dozens of cases over
Invokana to be transferred and centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The panel designated Judge
Brian R. Martinotti to handle the cases.

According to the JPML's order, 55 cases were pending at the time
of consolidation, some of which had been filed in Minnesota,
Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia and West Virginia. In its
order, the panel said it expected to see 44 additional cases to be
filed in New Jersey federal court.

Janssen's request to stay and transfer, or dismiss the cases was
made Nov. 21 -- before the multidistrict litigation had been
established.  But, its motion said it was likely that Invokana
cases would be transferred to Judge Martinotti.  The drugmaker
said that transferring the Pennsylvania wing of the litigation to
Judge Martinotti would "encourage efficient and expeditious
resolution of these cases by a single judge while helping to
minimize the wastefulness of time, energy, and money."

Pennsylvania has been home to a significant chunk of the
nationwide Invokana-related litigation.

Most of the 106 cases pending in Pennsylvania federal court, which
involves 143 plaintiffs, were initially filed in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiffs had sought to consolidate those cases into a mass
tort in Philadelphia's Complex Litigation Center, but, before a
ruling was made on that request, the defendants removed the cases
to federal court, citing the Class Action Fairness Act.  That act
is aimed at ensuring federal courts can consider "interstate cases
of national importance."

In their challenge to the latest efforts to transfer the cases,
the plaintiffs have argued that the rule Janssen pointed to in
seeking to transfer the litigation to New Jersey may go against
the transfer rules outlined in the Class Action Fairness Act.  The
filing noted that the issue -- whether 28 U.S. Code Section 1332
does not allow transfer under 28 U.S. Code Section 1404 -- is one
of first impression for the district.

"Though various districts in California have permitted 1404(a)
transfer to an MDL . . . the legislative history was not
considered in any of those cases," the filing said.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to remand the cases back to
state court was also set to take place in federal court on
Jan. 11.


JD HOME: Settles Maintenance Workers' Class Action for $3MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Castillo, writing for Fresno Bee, reports that JD Home
Rentals, one of the Valley's largest property-management
companies, has quietly reached a settlement in a class-action
lawsuit brought by former maintenance workers for $3 million.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2015, alleges that the owners of JD
Homes failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest periods,
reimburse work-related expenses, provide timely and accurate wage
statements, and provide timely final payment to former employees
after they stopped working for the company.  It also alleges
unfair business practices and civil penalties for labor code
violations.

More than 450 current and former employees who worked for JD Homes
between May 11, 2011, and Sept. 15, 2015, could receive payment as
part of the settlement, which is pending court approval.

The settlement follows a ruling in July by the U.S. Department of
Labor, which ordered JD Homes to pay more than $259,000 in damages
and overtime wages to 157 employees -- mostly maintenance workers.

The company has also been sued multiple times over alleged housing
violations, including an ongoing class-action case brought in 2014
by the statewide renters' rights group Tenants Together.  The
company was among the landlords featured last year in The Fresno
Bee's "Living in Misery" series on substandard housing in Fresno.

The civil suit names David and Linda Hovannisian, their various
companies under the umbrella of JD Home Rentals, as well as Miguel
Torres and his company, who managed the employees. The defendants
have denied the claims.

Bryce Hovannisian, operation's manager for JD Homes, said part of
the agreement stipulates that attorneys for both sides cannot
comment.

"We came to an agreement and settled the case rather than continue
it," he said.

Public records show attorneys for JD Homes tried to make the same
stipulation apply to maintenance workers who are part of the
class.  Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan ruled that "payments to the
class representatives cannot be hinged on their silence about the
settlement" because their discussion helps ensure more people are
made aware of its existence.

Four former employees are named in the lawsuit: Jesus Miranda,
Jaime Magdaleno, Iriberto Meza and George Vasquez.  They will get
$10,000 each as an enhancement for their participation in the
lawsuit if the settlement is approved.

All gave similar statements in support of the settlement, saying
there were times they worked more than eight hours a day but were
not paid at an overtime rate, and that they didn't get all of
their lunch and break periods.  They said they were required to
buy tools, such as drills, saws and screwdrivers, and use their
personal cellphones for work purposes without reimbursement.

The men said they joined the class action to get justice for the
other workers who experience the same violations.  They said they
knew from the beginning that they were filing the lawsuit not only
for themselves, but also for all past and present employees "who
didn't know their rights or worried about losing their jobs if
they did something."

Mr. Miranda said he worked for JD Homes for more than 18 years,
until December 2014, as a maintenance person at various apartment
buildings throughout Fresno County.  Some of his duties included
unclogging toilets, fixing kitchen equipment and addressing
flooring issues.  He was paid $11 an hour.

"Because of my participation in this class action, I risked being
blacklisted from future jobs," Mr. Miranda said.  "I knew that
participating as a class representative could hurt me because jobs
are scarce in the Central Valley and the industry is small and
well connected.  I decided to take the risk anyway because I knew
that someone had to stand up for our rights."

The workers were represented by two lead attorneys: Enrique
Martinez of Oakland and Erandi Zamora of the nonprofit California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, which has an office in Fresno.
Zamora said she cannot comment.  Mr. Martinez submitted a
statement in support of the settlement that is public record.

He said JD Homes leaders provided more than 30,000 pages of
payroll data, reimbursement records and timecards from 2011 into
2015.  Mr. Martinez said he and Mr. Zamora met with more than 75
workers and that their documents, plus the data that JD leaders
provided, backed up the plaintiffs' claims.

Mr. Martinez said economist and statistician Dwight Steward of the
research firm EmployStats performed a damages analysis and
determined the maximum potential recovery was $5.3 million.

"Because of this litigation, the situation has improved for the
workers at JD Home Rentals," he said.  "Based on our conversations
with current employees, they are getting reimbursed for their
tools and other work expenses, and are now receiving overtime pay
and required meal breaks."


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Approves $5MM Deal in Baby Products Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports the people behind a
false advertising class action lawsuit that said Johnson &
Johnson's Bedtime Bath baby products did not make babies as sleepy
as the company claimed are asking a judge to formally approve a $5
million settlement, according to a motion filed Jan. 4.

The settlement would include nearly $1.5 million for attorneys,
while the individual plaintiffs would collect service awards of
$5,000 each. Members of the class could receive up to $15 each, if
they submit eligible claims.

Stephanie Leiner, of downstate Chillicothe, filed a class action
lawsuit July 2, 2015, in federal court in Chicago against New
Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practice Act and unjust enrichment, among other counts, saying the
company misled her and others into buying products the company
claimed were clinically proven to help babies sleep better.

Representing plaintiffs in the action are attorneys from the firms
of Stephan Zouras LLP, of Chicago, and Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller
& Shah LLP, of Media, Pa., and Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

Leiner said she and others bought Johnson & Johnson Bedtime
Products -- specifically, Bedtime Bath and Bedtime Lotion -- at a
premium price after seeing advertisements claiming such products
are "clinically proven" to help babies sleep better. But after
using the products in 2014 as part of the company's recommended
three-step nightly routine, she found the products did not help
her baby sleep better.

On. Aug. 31, 2016, U.S. District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. In addition
to Leiner, other named plaintiffs acknowledged in the action
included Jacqueline Real, Jinette Hidalgo and Jillian Gallagher.
The Jan. 4 motion characterized the settlement deal as "a hard-
fought compromise that was the culmination of adversarial, arms'-
length negotiations following extensive litigation."

Settlement terms include cash reimbursement related to purchases
of disputed products and creation of a $5 million fund to pay
class claims, administration costs and legal fees. Class lawyers
requested expenses and fees of $1,498,456.

Class members who submit claims supported by documentation could
claim $3 for each purchase of a covered product, with a cap of
five units, or $15 per customer. Those who can show proof of
purchase could file claims for a total of 10 units.

But those figures would be subject to pro rata adjustment based on
the number of valid claims filed and the amount in the settlement
fund at the time of payment. The motion noted Johnson & Johnson
sold roughly 30 million of the products at the heart of the
lawsuit, and court documents estimate the class could include as
many as 12.9 million consumers.

If approved, the settlement pool would be $3,042,321. As of Dec.
29, 261 people had called a phone line regarding claims, a related
website logged 410,268 views and nearly 250,000 claims were
submitted, carrying an average value of $14.19. The claim deadline
extends to April 28.

In arguing for the settlement, the plaintiffs note an expected
difficulty in class certification and the fact Johnson & Johnson
asserted the people who bought the products "lacked a future
injury and therefore had no claim for injunctive relief." They
further acknowledged they would have had to prove the classes were
identifiable based on objective criteria and admitted the
challenge of proving "commonality on the issue of whether
consumers were deceived."

Since the products that gave rise to the lawsuit cost $1 more than
Johnson & Johnson's other products -- though the company contends
the premium was, at most, 50 cents -- the fact each claimant right
now stands to get up to $12.17 "amounts to an excellent recovery,"
per the motion.

Any leftover settlement money would be split among two charitable
organizations, the Nurse-Family Partnership and Newborns in Need.

Johnson & Johnson is defended by the firms of Sidley Austin LLP,
of Chicago, and Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP, of Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C.


JONES FINANCIAL: Status Conference in "McDonald" Suit on June 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rodney W. Sippel entered a Scheduling Order in the
case, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L. P., Case No. 4:16-cv-
01346 (E.D. Mo.), setting Status Conference for June 15, 2017, at
10:00 a.m.

Judge Sippel also entered a Case Management Order regarding class
certification issues.   The Order provides that:

     -- Motion to Join Parties due by 3/10/2017.
     -- Discovery Completion due by 8/16/2017.
     -- Non-Dispositive Motions due by 9/8/2017.
     -- Class certification Hearing set for 11/16/2017 10:30 a.m.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss a retirement plan
litigation remains pending.

On August 19, 2016, the Partnership, Edward Jones and certain
other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit
(McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., Case No. 4:16-
cv-01346) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri brought under ERISA by a participant in the
Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the
"Retirement Plan").  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants
and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on
behalf of the Retirement Plan.  The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit on October 12, 2016, which is pending.

A Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint was filed on December 7.


KRAFT HEINZ: Seeks Dismissal of Parmesan Cheese Labeling Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that The Kraft Heinz Co. is hoping to toss dozens of class actions
over its "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" by asserting that the chief
claim over its label "defies common sense."

The suits allege the label failed to mention that its grated
cheese contained fillers made from wood pulp.  But Kraft, in a
motion to dismiss filed on Jan. 6, argues the lawsuits misconstrue
the words, which simply mean there's no other cheese than parmesan
in the can.  And, after all, what consumer wouldn't expect
prepackaged cheese in a plastic container to include some sort of
additives?

"This lawsuit is based solely on plaintiffs' unreasonable reading
of the name of Kraft Heinz's well-known product, '100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese,'" wrote Dean Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- a
partner at Chicago's Jenner & Block.  "Common sense dictates that
most packaged food products that remain on store shelves for an
extended period of time routinely contain ingredients to make them
shelf-stable and palatable."

As the onslaught of lawsuits over food labels rises, defendants
are hoping to dismiss cases early on by convincing judges common
sense dictates that no reasonable consumer would believe what the
plaintiffs allege.

"So many of these cases are being filed and so many labeling
practices being challenged, the food and beverage manufacturers
are raising this defense with some regularity: That these
allegations are not plausible," Steve Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- a New York partner at Patterson Belknap Webb
& Tyler, who represented Coca-Coca Co. in its high-profile juice
labeling case against POM Wonderful LLC.  "But it is a high bar."

Mr. Panos did not return a call for comment, and Ben Barnow, of
Chicago's Barnow and Associates, lead counsel in the case against
Kraft, declined to comment.

The plaintiffs' response is due on Feb. 10.

The suits follow a 2015 article on Bloomberg.com that cited
independent laboratory studies finding portions of Kraft's and
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s private-label grated parmesan cheese
contained cellulose, an anti-clumping agent made from wood pulp.
Wal-Mart, along with Target Corp., Supervalu Inc., Albertson's LLC
and ICCO-Cheese Co. Inc., an Orangeburg, New York-based
manufacturer that provides cheese to Target and Wal-Mart, also are
defendants in the litigation.

The other defendants, in separate motions, raised similar defenses
as Kraft, including federal pre-emption and the fact that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration includes the fillers in its
definition of "grated cheese."  They also say the labels list the
ingredients on the can.

Kraft cited two decisions in 2015 that dismissed cases after
finding the ingredient lists on packaging of Plum's Organic
pouches and Kind granola bars made the consumer's claims
unreasonable.

Dale Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- a partner in the Los
Angeles office of Mayer Brown, who won both of the decisions, said
the commonsense defense is a high bar since judges must consider
the allegations in a complaint as true and, under a 2008 decision
in Williams v. Gerber, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit found that an adequate ingredient list on a package of
Gerber fruit juice snacks didn't exempt a defendant from being
sued for misleading labeling.

"Whenever we make these types of arguments, we have to navigate
that, which is why this is the exception to the general rule," Mr.
Giali said.  "We were successful in doing that, but it is still a
very small percentage of cases that are subject to these arguments
are successful."


LA ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Goers' Motion for Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sheri Polster Chappell granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of Rule 23 class certification in the lawsuit
entitled TAMERA GOERS and ASHLEY CRISTINE MULLIGAN, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L.A.
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. and AMER SALAMEH, Case No. 2:15-cv-412-
FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs' reply memorandum of law in support of Plaintiffs'
motion to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and motion for declaration of a class
action as to minimum wage claims pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and motion for authorization to
send notice to the class is denied.

The Plaintiffs are former exotic entertainers at Babe's, an adult
nightclub in Fort Myers, Florida, owned and operated by the
Defendants.  The Plaintiffs bring an employment action based on
allegations that the Defendants have violated the wage and hour
requirements of the FLSA and the Florida Constitution.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/fWUDKt from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants Tamera Goers and Ashley Cristine
Mulligan are represented by:

          Jack C. Morgan III, Esq.
          Scott Hertz, Esq.
          Thomas G. Coleman, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
          2320 First Street, Suite 1000
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 337-4258
          Facsimile: (239) 337-0970
          E-mail: jmorgan@ralaw.com
                  shertz@ralaw.com

               - and -

          John B. Gallagher, Esq.
          JOHN B. GALLAGHER, PA
          2631 E Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 201
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306-1618
          Telephone: (954) 491-5886

Defendants and Counter Claimants L.A. Entertainment Group, Inc.,
and Amer Salameh are represented by:

          Conor Foley, Esq.
          Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
          JASON L. GUNTER, PA
          1514 Broadway, Suite 101
          Ft. Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 334-7017
          Facsimile: (239) 244-9942
          E-mail: conor@gunterfirm.com
                  Jason@Gunterfirm.com

               - and -

          Roger Jon Diamond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROGER JON DIAMOND
          2115 Main St.
          Santa Monica, CA 90405-2215
          Telephone: (310) 399-3259


LENOVO: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Hidden Adware
----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that
computer manufacturer Lenovo asked a California federal judge on
Jan. 17 to toss part of a lawsuit alleging the company installed
hidden adware with security vulnerabilities on laptops it sold,
saying class members don't have standing to bring claims based on
security issues.

The court certified two classes of consumers in October, but
allowed only seven of their dozen claims that Lenovo unlawfully
accessed their devices and interfered with their computers'
performance to move forward.  Now, Lenovo is seeking to chop off
another claim from the consum ers' amended complaint:
specifically, that Lenovo breached the deceptive acts and
practices statute by allegedly preinstalling a program on
computers without their consent or knowledge that exposed customer
data to security risks.

"These are not new theories; they were asserted in plaintiffs'
original complaint.  The problem, for plaintiffs, is that there
was no economic impact associated with these alleged issues," the
company said in its motion to dismiss the claim, adding that "the
amended class action complaint is a second bite of the apple in
the hope that the court will reconsider [U.S. District Judge
Ronald M. Whyte's] ruling."

The dispute faults the computer manufacturer and software
developer Superfish Inc. for secretly preinstalling a program
called VisualDiscovery -- which allowed Superfish to monitor
people's online activities and tailor advertisements to their
interests -- in 40 models of Lenovo computers beginning in 2014.

Back in October, the court gave the consumers a chance to amend
the tossed allegations, including negligence claims and
allegations under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and a
pair of state consumer protection statutes.

Judge Whyte addressed the issue of whether the plaintiffs had
asserted an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing by
alleging that Lenovo's use of VisualDiscovery invaded their
privacy, exposed them to security breaches, and caused problems
with their computers by wasting memory and making the machines run
less efficiently.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 holding in Clapper v. Amnesty
International, which held that future injuries must be "certainly
impending" and that mere allegations of possible future injury are
insufficient, Judge Whyte concluded that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue their claims on the basis that the software
exposed their laptops and their information to potential security
breaches.

However, the judge quickly noted that the finding did not doom the
suit and that the consumers had standing to proceed because they
had additionally alleged concrete injuries when it came to the
privacy and performance issues purportedly caused by the laptops.

Judge Whyte rejected Lenovo's argument that the proposed classes
could not move forward because they included consumers who had not
been harmed, an argument the company based on the assertions that
users gave their computers positive performance reviews, opted out
of or uninstalled the VisualDiscovery software, or did not
purchase their laptops until after the software was shut down in
January 2015.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan K. Levine --
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- and Elizabeth C. Pritzker --
ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- of Pritzker Levine LLP, Daniel C. Girard
-- dcg@girardgibbs.com -- and Elizabeth A. Kramer of Girard Gibbs
LLP, and Matthew K. Edling, Philip L. Gregory --
pgregory@cpmlegal.com -- and Steven N. Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Lenovo is represented by Daniel J. Stephenson of K&L Gates LLP.

The case is In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, case number 5:15-md-
02624, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Cash & Stock Deal Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17,
2016, that on November 17, 2016, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia granted final approval of the
proposed settlement in the consolidated securities class action,
In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (the
"Securities Litigation") and in the related and consolidated
derivative action, In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.
Shareholder Derivative Litigation (the "Derivative Litigation").

On November 17, 2016, the court entered final judgment dismissing
all claims with respect to all defendants in the Securities
Litigation and the Derivative Litigation. The final judgments were
entered as contemplated by the terms of the definitive settlement
agreement with the Securities Litigation defendants dated June 15,
2016 (the "Securities Class Action Stipulation") and the
definitive settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the
Derivative Litigation dated July 18, 2016 (the "Derivative
Stipulation").

Pursuant to the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation:

     -- the Company issued the Shares on November 17, 2016 with
        an approximate value of $16.8 million based on the
        $16.76 per share closing price of the Company's common
        stock on the date of issuance; and

     -- the Company expects to contribute, through its insurers,
        $26.0 million in cash to a settlement fund in the fourth
        quarter of 2016.

At September 30, 2016, the Company classified the Securities
Litigation loss contingency of $45.7 million as accrued securities
class action and the expected insurance proceeds of $26.0 million
as insurance receivable on its condensed consolidated balance
sheet.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company expects to recognize a
non-cash, pre-tax gain of approximately $2.9 million, representing
the decrease in the fair value of the Shares at issuance from the
estimated fair value of the Shares as of September 30, 2016 of
$19.7 million. The Company also expects to record a $26.0 million
reduction to both insurance receivable and accrued securities
class action upon the insurance proceeds being contributed to the
settlement fund by the insurers.

Under the terms of the Derivative Stipulation, the Derivative
Litigation will be settled for a combination of corporate
governance changes, a payment of $26.0 million in insurance
proceeds (which the insurers will contribute on behalf of the
Company to the Securities Litigation settlement fund discussed
above), and attorneys' fees of $5.0 million. The Company expects
the attorney's fees to be paid in the fourth quarter of 2016, with
half of these fees being paid by the Company's insurers on behalf
of the Company. The expected net cash flow from this series of
transactions is a $2.5 million aggregate outflow by the Company.
At September 30, 2016, the Company classified a Derivative
Litigation loss contingency of $5.0 million within other current
liabilities and the expected insurance proceeds of $2.5 million
within insurance receivable on the balance sheet.


MASTERCARD INC: Lawyer Argues Lacks Spectrum of Commonality
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Davis at Law360 reports that a GBP14 billion ($17.2 billion)
consumer antitrust suit against MasterCard over swipe fees
shouldn't proceed as a class action because the estimated 46
million claims don't have enough in common, lawyers for the credit
card company told a London tribunal on January 19.

Lawyers for MasterCard argue that a landmark GBP14 billion
antitrust case accusing the credit card giant of fixing swipe fees
shouldn't get class status because the estimated 46 million claims
don't have enough in common.

Mark Hoskins -- mark.hoskins@brickcourt.co.uk --of Brick Court
Chambers,  a barrister representing MasterCard Inc., argued that
differences between spending amounts among consumers and
differences in how much of any overcharges each retailer passed on
to its customers meant that the application didn't sufficiently
meet the common issues test under Competition Appeal Tribunal
rules for a collective proceedings order.

Though the U.K. instituted the new collective action system for
antitrust damages suits in 2015, the tribunal has yet to issue
such an order.

Hoskins referred to a "spectrum of commonality" for CAT class
action claims, with suits containing identical claims at one end.

"At the other end of the spectrum, you have this case, with 46
million claimants with a myriad of differences," said Hoskins,
speaking during the second day of hearings to decide whether to
advance the claim as a class action. "If a CPO is granted in this
case, it's hard to see where the line will be drawn."

The consumer claim is one of more than a dozen suits MasterCard
faces since the company lost its appeal in 2014 against a European
Commission ruling that it broke EU competition law by setting a
minimum price for cross-border interchange fees -- bank-to-bank
charges paid from a merchant's bank to a card-issuing bank when a
purchase is processed.

Hoskins provided the court with a few examples of differences
between the many claims.

"A single man in Chelsea is very much likely to have a different
spending profile to a married mother in Aberdeen," Hoskins said.
"Every individual in the claim will have a different spending
profile and each of those profiles is likely to have changed over
the period."

The consumer suit, lodged by attorney and former chief financial
services ombudsman Walter Merricks in September, is one of the
first filed using the U.K.'s new class action regime created in
2015.

Merricks seeks compensation for millions of U.K. consumers who
allegedly overpaid as a result of anti-competitive interchange
fees that MasterCard imposed on credit and debit card transactions
between 1992 and 2008.

On Wednesday, Paul Harris, a barrister representing Merricks, told
the court that a class action was the only possible way for
consumers to gain compensation against the credit card company,
given the relatively small individual damages.

"This case is the epitome, the absolute archetype that the
government had in mind when putting together the new regime,"
Harris said. "[MasterCard] injured millions of people and what's
more, they injured those people without them even realizing they
had been injured."

But on  on January 19, Hoskins told the court that Merricks had
ignored the commonality principle when putting forward the case.

"One can't rely on the contention that aggregate damages are the
only appropriate remedy, to sidestep legal principles," Hoskins
said.

Hoskins also took to task Merricks' position that the two sides
were broadly in agreement over the fact that many companies passed
the higher costs on to consumers, given MasterCard's defense in a
suit from J. Sainsbury PLC claiming that the grocer charged higher
prices as a result of the fees.

"The fact that MasterCard has previously argued for a high rate of
pass-on cannot bind it in this tribunal," said Hoskins.

MasterCard has already been forced to pay Sainsbury's GBP68
million after losing the suit in July last year. The company is
also waiting on the outcome of a trial brought last year by grocer
WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC, while a third trial brought by
German railway company Deutsche Bahn AG is scheduled to start in
May.

At least 20 suits were filed in London's High Court between August
and December 2016 against MasterCard and Visa. Five further claims
have been filed since the start of January, from companies
including restaurant chains Bella Italia and Cafe Rouge, according
to court records.

Merricks is represented by Paul Harris QC of Monckton Chambers,
Marie Demetriou QC and Victoria Wakefield of Brick Court Chambers,
Nicholas Bacon QC of 4 New Square and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP.

MasterCard is represented by Mark Hoskins QC and Tony Singla of
Brick Court Chambers, Ben Williams QC of 4 New Square and Matthew
Cook of One Essex Court and Freshfields.

The case is Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. MasterCard Inc.,
MasterCard International Inc. and MasterCard Europe S.P.R.L., case
number 1266/7/7/16, at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Motion to Dismiss IPO Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing date
for the Company's motion to dismiss has not yet been set.

The Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in connection
with the Company's IPO, have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed August 31, 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act by not including information regarding
customer concentration, which the complaint characterizes as a
known trend and/or significant factor required to be disclosed
under federal securities regulations. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest and other costs.

The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on
January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included
in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified
damages.

On March 24, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to that
motion on May 9, 2016, and the Company filed a reply brief on June
8, 2016. A hearing date for the Company's motion to dismiss has
not yet been set, however, the Court may rule on the motion
without hearing oral arguments.

The Company disputes these claims and is defending this matter
vigorously, and is unable to estimate the amount of a potential
loss or range of potential loss, if any. Legal fees are expensed
in the period in which they are incurred.

MaxPoint is a marketing technology company that generates
hyperlocal intelligence to optimize brand and retail performance.
It provides a platform for brands to connect the digital world
with the physical world through hyperlocal execution, measurement
and consumer insights.


MERITOR INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year October 2, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit remains pending.

In March 2016, the company was served with a complaint filed
against the company and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint
is a proposed class action and alleges that the company violated
federal and state antitrust and other laws in connection with a
former business of the company that manufactured and sold exhaust
systems for automobiles. The alleged class is comprised of persons
and entities that purchased or leased a passenger vehicle during a
specified time period.

In April 2016, the company was served with a virtually identical
suit also naming the company as a defendant on behalf of a
purported class of automobile dealers.

In September 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss. The
company intends to defend itself vigorously against these claims.

The company believes at this time that liabilities associated with
this case, while possible, are not probable, and therefore has not
recorded any accrual for them as of September 30, 2016. Further,
any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this
time.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a premier
global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules
and components to original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and
the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors.


MICROFIBRES INC: Settles Employees' WARN Act Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
settlement has been reached in the WARN Act compensation dispute
between defunct Microfibres Inc. and plaintiffs certified for a
class-action lawsuit.

The settlement was disclosed on Jan. 13, eight days after the case
appeared headed to alternative dispute resolution.

Bankruptcy trustee Joseph DiOrio said the parties expect to file
the settlement with the bankruptcy court this week.

Microfibres, based in Pawtucket, R.I., filed for Chapter 7
voluntary bankruptcy protection in January 2016 with plans to
liquidate its assets -- the same day it closed its Winston-Salem
and Pawtucket plants.

The local workforce was at 270 employees in 2004.  About 125
employees in Winston-Salem and 60 in Pawtucket were projected to
be covered by Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or
WARN, protections.

The plaintiffs are requesting at least $1.5 million in damages and
priority administrative claim status for the first $12,745 of each
employees' claim, meaning they typically would be first in line
after secured creditors are paid.

The act was enacted in 1989 with the intent of preventing
situations in which rank-and-file employees show up for work only
to discover that their employer has shut down without notice.

The act does this by requiring companies that are planning large
job cuts -- defined as more than 50 employees -- to notify their
state and local governments, as well as affected workers, at least
60 days in advance.

The act provides certain benefits to laid-off workers, such as 60
days of pay and benefit contributions if the closing is immediate,
and access to COBRA insurance benefits for 60 days.

However, the U.S. Labor Department has no authority to enforce
WARN regulations, hear employee complaints, investigate potential
wrongdoing or file lawsuits representing employees. Employees must
file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN rights.

On Aug. 24, a federal judge certified the class-action lawsuit
with a local former employee, Cedric Williams, serving as lead
plaintiff.

Mr. DiOrio had asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming
the company is not financially liable to the workforce "because it
was a faltering business when it ceased operations."
Mr. DiOrio said Microfibres acted in good faith toward its
employees, including paying them "in full for compensation they
were owed."


MOLINA HEALTHCAREL Faces Class Action Over Medi-Cal Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Jones Sanborn, writing for Healthcare Finance, reports that
Los Angeles physician sues Molina Healthcare over Medi-Cal
payments, seeking class-action status Doctor is seeking class-
action status for a lawsuit against Molina Healthcare, saying the
insurer owes thousands for Medi-Cal patient care.

A Los Angeles-area doctor is seeking class-action status for a
lawsuit against Molina Healthcare, saying the insurer owes him
thousands of dollars for caring for Medi-Cal patients under the
Affordable Care Act.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 30 in Los Angeles County Superior
Court on behalf of Dr. Manuel Figueroa of the Associated Hispanic
Physicians of Southern California, a doctors group with which
Molina Healthcare contracts.

Dr. Figueroa's high-profile lawyer, Brian Mahany, said he is
searching for other doctors who may have been similarly underpaid
in other states where Molina operates.  He estimates hundreds of
other doctors could be in a similar situation.

Dr. Figueroa contends that Molina did not pay him "enhanced"
reimbursements for Medi-Cal patients that were made possible by
the Affordable Care Act.  Under that law, insurers in 2013 and
2014 were to pay doctors higher rates for some types of care for
patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program.  The
enhanced payments program ended in 2014.

Dr. Figueroa qualified for enhanced payments for services provided
in 2013 and 2014, according to his attorney Mahany.  The health
plan paid Dr. Figueroa part of what was owed him but still owes
him for care he provided in 2013 and part of 2014, according to
the complaint.

"Why would any physician want to accept a Medicaid patient if they
are getting shortchanged on their pay?" said Mahany.

The publicly traded insurer, based in Long Beach, operates health
plans in 12 states and Puerto Rico covering about 4.2 million
people, including 683,000 in California.  Most of its members are
enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare managed care plans.

Dr. Mario Molina, president and CEO of Molina Healthcare, said he
was "mystified" to learn about Figueroa's lawsuit.

Dr. Figueroa submitted claims that are not eligible for augmented
payments under ACA program in discussion, Molina said.  For
example, only "evaluation and management services" such as
consultations and routine checkups, but not lab or x-ray services,
are eligible for augmented payments.  That might be adding to the
confusion, Dr. Molina said.

California ranks 47th in the country in reimbursements to doctors
for treating Medi-Cal patients, Molina said.  "For us, the health
plan, [the enhanced payment] was a terrific boon; it was extra
money we could pass down to our doctors."

Consejos de Latinos Unidos, a national consumer advocacy group,
recently submitted a letter to the Office of the Inspector General
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services asking the
federal agency to investigate Molina Healthcare for "sitting on
federal funds and underpaying Latino physicians and others."  The
advocacy group has been investigating the allegations since 2015,
according to its CEO and executive director K.B. Forbes.

"Molina appears to be engaged in grossly deceptive and egregious
behavior," Mr. Forbes wrote.  According to Forbes, who has been in
talks with Dr. Figueroa's office, it is estimated Molina
Healthcare may still owe Figueroa $15,000 to $25,000.

Mr. Forbes said the advocacy group has spoken with other
California doctors in a similar position but declined to name
them. "We believe this is a pattern," he said.

Mr. Forbes noted that Figueroa's office also contracts with three
other insurance plans, but only had an issue collecting
reimbursements for Medi-Cal services from Molina Healthcare.

But Molina says his office has not heard from any other doctors.

"This company was founded by a Latino doctor," Molina said. "Why
would we want to cheat other Latino doctors?"

The lawsuit comes as Molina Healthcare has profited from the
Affordable Care Act but also faces an uncertain future amid a
planned repeal of the health law.  In February, a group of Florida
hospitals sued the insurer for allegedly underpaying for emergency
room care.

Molina Healthcare profits totaled $143 million in 2015, more than
double the profits of 2014, according to its most recent financial
report.


MONSANTO: Experts Weigh in on Roundup Class-Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson at Florida Record reports Monsanto faces a batch of
lawsuits alleging its Roundup fertilizer product can lead to
developing a non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and two experts weighed in on
the developments for The Florida Record.

At least two recent cases have been filed against the agriculture
supply and chemical company. In December, James Mitchell v.
Monsanto was filed in the Northern District of Florida for the
11th Circuit. The other lawsuit was brought forth by a Nebraskan
also diagnosed with the disease. That case, Daniel Kowal v.
Monsanto, was filed in November in Delaware Superior Court. In
both cases, the plaintiffs were users of Roundup.

Steve Gardner -- steve@consumerhelper.com -- consumer attorney at
Stanley Law Group, said to The Florida Record in an email: "These
are serious illnesses. Are these developments rather similar to
cases against tobacco companies? Will there be similar outcomes to
those that developed after the tobacco-company cases (e.g.
awareness campaigns, financial damages, etc.)?"

"The tobacco cases were something of a one-off," he added. "A
consumer product that, when used as directed, can kill you --
nothing to touch that when it comes to food. The merits/risks of
[genetically modified organisms] are still debatable, as to
safety. As to the adverse effect on the environment (overspray,
killing butterflies, etc.), it's pretty much clear that GMOs are
bad. The third consideration as to GMOs is socioeconomic --
whether we want companies like Monsanto and Bayer conspiring to
own supplies of rice or other staples."

Maria Glover, associate professor of law at Georgetown University,
said the cancer link is the only real commonality.

"I'm not a medical expert," Glover told The Florida Record. "But
the ways in which it is similar to tobacco is cancer being common
between them. Lung cancer is associated with smoking. They are not
signature diseases the way asbestos is tied to mesothelioma. Lots
of people who smoked, they also faced other risks associated with
it, like coal mining for example."

Monsanto has remained firm in its position that Roundup is "safer
than table salt" and assert that the product does not cause cancer
in humans. On the other hand, Roundup was classified as a
"probable human carcinogen" by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer.

Gardner said information like this could play a significant role
in the cases.

"Probably -- but, as I noted (previously), it's far from clear,"
he said. "I would err on the side of caution. Traditionally, (the
Food and Drug Administration) required proof that a food
ingredient was generally recognized as safe (GRAS) before it could
be used in foods. On GMOs, FDA has effectively adopted the very
short-sighted (literally) position that, as of now, there is no
clear proof that it's dangerous -- a new standard of 'it's not
definitely unsafe.'"

The Florida case appears to be split into two phases: one for
determining if Roundup causes cancer, then jury or
settlement/resolution.

"That splitting is not the norm, but it's done in the right
cases," Gardner said. "And it certainly is a great way to
proceed."

Glover said the process of "splitting" has been used in the past
to resolve other cases.

"It is not atypical at all," Glover said. "When you're dealing
with these types of damages, you will have to have individual
follow on damages. Certain medical criteria entitle you to x, y
and z. The BP oil spill had similar procedures. It is not atypical
to carve out what's called an issue class."

Glover predicted Monsanto's next moves in court.

"Roundup is going to fight causation," she said. "The difficulty
for the plaintiff will be whether this element causes the disease
at all. With Roundup, there seems to be a significant dispute to
whether it causes cancer. This dispute is about whether this
chemical actually causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. There does not seem
to be agreement among professionals."

About 50 separate lawsuits alleging Roundup caused lymphoma have
been centralized in multi-district litigation in the Northern
District of California for the purpose of coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.


MONTROSE MANAGEMENT: Faces Second Class Action Over Assessments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaimy Jones, writing for Chron.com, reports that as pressure from
the court mounts, Montrose Management District hasn't budged in
its position that it will not pay back assessments to area
business owners that Harris County District Judge Halbach called
"void" while the suit -- brought by Robert Rose in 2012 against
the district -- is pending.

But even though Mr. Rose and attorneys are waiting, they're not
taking time off from making their case.

Attorneys for Mr. Rose filed a new lawsuit in Harris County, but
this time under class certification, Jan. 4 on behalf of thousands
of business owners involved that were collectively assessed $6.5
million since the district was established.

"Despite the filing of a previous lawsuit . . . on the this exact
same issue, and despite that Trial Court's findings that all of
the MMD assessments which derived collected from 2011-2016 are
illegal, void, paid under duress, and must be reimbursed to those
who paid them, the District . . . arrogantly continue to ignore
these findings and instead engage in this unconstitutional and
illegal conduct until the present time," stated court documents.
Judge Halbach made the initial judgement that the payments were
void in November, but a handful of commercial property owners who
say they should be reimbursed haven't received any correspondence
from the court or from the management district.

But an attorney for the plaintiffs told the Houston Chronicle
after the filing, "We want all of it back, irrespective if they've
spent it," said Andy Taylor, the attorney representing the
property owners.

And that is precisely the worry of some who say they are owed.
"I should be getting a refund, but they're not going to give it,
they've already spent it is my understanding," said Shawn Baksh,
commercial property in Montrose and real estate broker.

Mr. Baksh said that most of the board members are neighbors and
fellow-business owners to those under the tax, and he doesn't
understand how the board can continue to act in what he calls an
unethical practice by not responding to the resistance they've
shown to the establishment of the district.

In reference to the $500,000 the district spent on decorative
markers that continue to go up around the area, and their price-
tag, the real estate professional says he could have built a
brand-new building for that.

The only response MMD has made since the Jan. 4 filing is on their
website, and have not responded to requests for interviews.
"Unless and until the trial court issues a final judgment that
orders a refund of any assessments, which will not occur until
after all additional activities in the trial court have taken
place, and after any appeal has been concluded, the District will
have no obligation to refund any assessments collected," said the
post.


NEW ORIENTAL: Feb. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the February 13,
2017 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased New Oriental
Education & Technology Group Inc. securities between September 27,
2016 and December 1, 2016, inclusive. New Oriental investors have
until February 13, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

On December 2, 2016, Reuters issued an article alleging that New
Oriental has been accused of conducting college application fraud.
According to the article, several former and current New Oriental
employees "told Reuters the firms have engaged in college
application fraud, including writing application essays and
teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts."
The American International Recruitment Council ("AIRC") issued a
statement later that day announcing that it would conduct its own
investigation in regards to the allegations put forth in the
Reuters article. AIRC's president-elect called the report "highly
concerning."

On this news, shares of New Oriental fell over 14% per share on
December 2, 2016.

According to the complaint filed in this class action, during the
Class Period, New Oriental made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) New Oriental engaged in
college application fraud; and (2) as a result, Defendants'
statements about New Oriental's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased New Oriental shares, you may move the Court no
later than February 13, 2017 to request appointment as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Class of Detainees Certified in "Onadia" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mitchell J. Danziger certified as a class action the
lawsuit styled OSCAR ONADIA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF and OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOHN DOES 1-10 (NAMES
BEING FICTITIOUS and PRESENTLY UNKNOWN), and JOHN DOES 11-20
(NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS and PRESENTLY UNKNOWN), Case No.
0300340/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.).  The certified class is
defined as:

     All persons who were detained by the New York City
     Department of Correction, during the limitations period,
     beyond the individual's scheduled release date, despite all
     other conditions for the person's release being satisfied,
     and based solely on a detainer issued by U.S. Immigration
     and Customs Enforcement prior to December 21, 2012 that
     either (1) indicated that an investigation had been
     commenced by ICE, or (2) failed to indicate a reason for
     continued detention (i.e. no boxes checked on the detainer
     form).

The Court directs the parties to appear for a status conference on
March 1, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at which time the Plaintiff will
submit a proposed Notice of Class Action to the Court for
consideration in accordance with CPLR Section 904(b).  The
proposed notice of class action will be served upon the Defendant
at least 10 days prior to March 1, 2017, or any adjourned date
thereof.  The Plaintiff will simultaneously serve the Defendant
with a list of potential class members identified during the
exchange of discovery herein and provide the same to the court
with the proposed notice.

A copy of the Decision/Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/4j0vPC from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Brinkerhoff, Esq.
          Debra Greenburger, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 763-5001
          E-mail: mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com
                  dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com

Defendant New York City is represented by:

          Chlarens Orsland, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church St., Room 6F35
          New York, NY 10007-2601
          Telephone: (212) 356-2086
          E-mail: corsland@law.nyc.gov


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on
representing shareholders nationwide, disclosed that on January
17, 2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of OneMain
Holdings, Inc.  (OMF) ("OneMain" or the "Company") between March
3, 2015 and November 7, 2016 (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Lifshitz & Miller.  If you are a OneMain investor, and would like
additional information about our investigation and complaint,
please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua
Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at
info@jlclasslaw.com.

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

The Complaint alleges that defendants caused the Company to issue
materially misleading statements and/or omit material information
concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects
following Springleaf Holdings, Inc.'s merger with OneMain
Financial Holdings, LLC in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In particular, the
Complaint alleges that defendants caused the Company to issue
materially misleading representations and/or omit material
information regarding the projected net income to be achieved by
the Company following, and in large part due to, the combination
of OneMain Financial with Springleaf and the purported synergies
achieved by the combined company.

Investors have until March 20, 2017 to file a motion, with the
court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors
in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder
derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the
country.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 18 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Ophthotech Corporation
("Ophthotech" or the "Company") in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers
of common stock of Ophthotech between May 11, 2015 and December
12, 2016 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Complaint, Defendants made overtly positive
representations regarding the effectiveness of its treatment
Fovista and Fovista's potential when used in combination with
Lucentis, a commercially available anti-vascular endothelial
growth factor agent.  According to the Complaint, Ophthotech made
these statements despite its awareness that the phase 3 clinical
trial of Fovista would not meet its primary endpoint of change in
best corrected visual acuity from baseline at 12 months over
Lucentis alone.  The Complaint further alleges that these
statements caused Ophthotech stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

On December 12, 2016, Ophthotech released its discouraging results
for two phase 3 clinical trials that were testing its experimental
compound Fovista combined with the Lucentis drug.  Following this
news, Ophthotech stock dropped close to 86% during to close at
$5.29 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 13, 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, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Ophthotech Corporation
and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Ophthotech
securities between May 11, 2015 and December 12, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made overtly positive representations regarding its treatment
Fovista's effectiveness and potential when used in combination
with Lucentis, a commercially available anti-vascular endothelial
growth factor agent. Ophthotech made these statements despite its
awareness that the phase 3 clinical trial of Fovista would not
meet its primary endpoint of change in best corrected visual
acuity from baseline at 12 months over Lucentis alone. The
complaint further alleges that these statements caused Ophthotech
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

On December 12, 2016, Ophthotech released its discouraging results
for two phase 3 clinical trials that were testing its experimental
compound Fovista combined with the Lucentis drug. Following this
news, Ophthotech stock dropped close to 86% during to close at
$5.29 per share.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ophtor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Ophthotech you have until March 13, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


PFIZER INC: Arbitration Policy Violates Law, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverman, writing for Pharmalot, reports that a Pfizer policy
that prohibits employees from filing joint complaints and
grievances violates federal law with the same "venom" as
anti-union contracts that were commonplace nearly a century ago,
an administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board
ruled.

The drug maker had required employees to waive their rights to
file class-action lawsuits as a condition of employment, which the
judge determined runs afoul of the National Labor Relations Act.
Instead, the company policy forced employees to pursue arbitration
individually to resolve any disputes.


PHILLIPS 66: Buzas et al. Allege Violations of Cal. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYNDL BUZAS, RAUDEL COVARRUBIAS, and DANIEL RUNIONS, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00163-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
January 12, 2017), alleges unfair business practices and
violations of the California Labor Code, by among others, having
no policy or system for providing relief to Plaintiffs to allow
them to take off-duty rest breaks.

Defendant owns oil refineries, chemical plants, and distribution
facilities in Wilmington, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jay Smith, Esq.
     Joshua F. Young, Esq.
     GILBERT & SACKMAN
     3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (323) 938-3000
     Fax: (323) 937-9139
     Email: js@gslaw.org
     Email: jyoung@gslaw.org

        - and -

     Randy Renick, Esq.
     Cornelia Dai, Esq.
     HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
     128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
     Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
     Phone: (626) 585-9600
     Fax: (626) 577-7079
     E-mail: Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
     Email: cdai@hadsellstormer.com


PITTSBURGH GLASS: 3rd Cir. Clarifies Employer Liability Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said that
employers can be taken to court for policies that meant to protect
employees 40 or older that inadvertently hurt those in other age
subgroups, such as those in their 50s.

The court ruled on Jan. 10 that subgroups' disparate impact claims
are recognized under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in a
case brought by former Pittsburgh Glass Works employees in their
50s who filed an age discrimination class action.

The workers in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works claimed to have
identified a practice at the glassworks that disproportionately
impacted employees 50 and over in favor of those in their 40s. The
disparate impact claims was denied by the district court, but the
Third Circuit reversed the ruling and held that their claims were
valid under the ADEA.

Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in the court's opinion the ADEA
made provisions to address policies that are "fair in form, but
discriminatory in operation," such as in an instance where
employees in their 50s can be replaced with employees in their
40s, who while younger are protected by the ADEA.  He pointed to
the 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case of O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin
Caterers to show that the ADEA prohibits age discrimination as a
whole, not just 40-and-over discrimination.

Cited in Judge Brooks' opinion, the high court said the act "does
not ban discrimination against employees because they are aged 40
or older; it bans discrimination against employees because of
their age, but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or
older.  The fact that one person in the protected class has lost
out to another person in the protected class is thus irrelevant,
so long as he has lost out because of his age."

In keeping with the high court's reasoning, Judge Brooks said, "We
conclude that the Supreme Court's analysis in O'Connor answers the
question now before us.  A specific, facially neutral policy that
significantly disfavors employees over 50 years old supports a
claim of disparate impact . . . . Although the employer's policy
might favor younger members of the 40-and-over cohort, that is an
'utterly irrelevant factor' in evaluating whether a company's
oldest employees were disproportionately affected because of their
age."

The class members' attorney, Samuel J. Cordes of Samuel J. Cordes
& Associates in Pittsburgh, said the Third Circuit's ruling
created a circuit split on the contentious issue of disparate
impact with at least three other courts.

"Before the Third Circuit [ruling], every other circuit said the
other thing," Mr. Cordes said.  He added that it remains to be
seen whether that ruling will be challenged in the Supreme Court.

"I don't know whether the Supreme Court takes it or not, but I
don't think the statutory interpretation Judge Smith did provides
a lot of fodder for the Supreme Court," Mr. Cordes said.

David S. Becker -- dbecker@freeborn.com -- of Freeborn & Peters in
Chicago represented PGW and said he was unsure as to whether he
was authorized to comment.


PJT PARTNERS: Seeks Dismissal of "Barrett" Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case, Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT Partners
Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen, Case No. 1:16-cv-02841
(S.D.N.Y.), have filed a motion and memorandum of law in support
of their motion to dismiss an amended complaint.

PJT Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that on April 15, 2016,
Plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed in the Southern District of New
York a putative class action for violation of the federal
securities laws against defendants PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W.
W. Caspersen in an action styled Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT
Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen, No. 1:16-cv-02841-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.). Generally, the complaint alleges that PJT Partners
made misstatements about its business, operational and compliance
policies and its compliance and fraud-prevention controls. These
alleged misstatements allegedly caused members of the putative
class, investors who purchased PJT Partners common stock during
the class period, November 12, 2015 to March 28, 2016, to pay an
inflated price for PJT Partners common stock. The complaint
alleges claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act against PJT Partners and Mr. Caspersen, and under 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against Mr. Caspersen.

On June 14, 2016, plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel. On August 3, 2016, the motion was granted.

On September 23, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint. The amended complaint alleges claims under
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT
Partners, Paul J. Taubman, Helen T. Meates and Mr. Caspersen and
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Taubman and
Ms. Meates. The Company, Mr. Taubman and Ms. Meates intend to move
to dismiss the amended complaint.

"We believe that this shareholder action is without merit and will
defend it vigorously," the Company said.

PJT Partners is a global advisory-focused investment bank.


POST HOLDINGS: Accrued $28.5MM in Egg Antitrust Action
------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has accrued
$28.5 million related to an antitrust class action lawsuit against
egg producers.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages. Michael Foods has denied liability.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of
companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that
purchase considerable quantities of eggs) opted out of any
eventual class of direct purchaser plaintiffs and brought their
own separate actions against the defendants. These "opt-out"
plaintiffs assert essentially the same allegations as plaintiffs
in the main direct purchaser action. The opt-out cases also are
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they are
being treated as related to the main action.

Additionally, all or most defendants, including Michael Foods,
received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") issued by the
Florida Attorney General in late 2008, regarding an investigation
of possible anticompetitive activities "relating to the production
and sale of eggs or egg products." The CID requested information
related to the pricing and supply of shell eggs and egg products,
and participation in various programs of United Egg Producers. The
Florida Attorney General's Office has not taken any further
enforcement action during the pendency of the civil antitrust
litigation.

Motions related to class certification

On September 18, 2015, the court denied the motion of the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs (primarily consumers who purchased shell eggs
from grocery stores) for class certification. The indirect
purchaser plaintiffs have filed an alternative motion for
certification of an injunction class, and the denial of their
original motion is subject to appeal. On September 21, 2015, the
court granted the motion of the direct purchaser plaintiffs to
certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify
an egg-products subclass. However, on September 2, 2016, the
defendants filed a motion to decertify the class of direct
purchasers of shell eggs; there has been no ruling on that motion.

Motions for summary judgment

On September 6, 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss claims based on purchases of egg products, thereby
limiting the claims to shell eggs. Certain of the egg products
purchasers whose claims were dismissed have appealed to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 28, 2016, the court denied individual motions for
summary judgment made by Michael Foods and three other defendants
that had sought the dismissal of all claims against them. Michael
Foods has moved to have denial of its motion for summary judgment
certified for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals; there has been no ruling on that motion. In light of the
denial of Michael Foods' motion for summary judgment, the Company
will continue to vigorously defend the cases.

Past settlements with the direct purchaser class in this case by
other defendants have been as high as $28 million. Amounts paid in
settlements with the opt-out plaintiffs are not known. There can
be no assurance that the cases against Michael Foods will be
resolved by settlements, or that any settlements would be in line
with the previous settlements referenced. Under current law, any
settlement paid, if any, would be deductible for federal income
tax purposes.

The Company has accrued $28.5 million for this matter.

Post Holdings, Inc. is a consumer packaged goods holding company,
operating in the center-of-the-store, foodservice, ingredient,
refrigerated, active nutrition and private label food categories.


PROSPER FUNDING: To Pay $3 Million in Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 17, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company is expected to pay $3 million in 2017 as
part of a class action settlement.

In 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Prosper
and certain of its executive officers and directors in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers
on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The
lawsuit alleged that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws.

On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims
related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the
Settlement, Prosper agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10
million into a settlement fund, split into four annual
installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million
in 2016 and $3 million in 2017.

The Settlement received final approval in a final order and
judgment entered by the Superior Court on April 16, 2014. Pursuant
to the final order and judgment, the claims in the class action
were dismissed, and the defendants were released by the plaintiffs
from all claims that were or could have been asserted concerning
the issues alleged in the class action lawsuit. The first three
annual installments have been made prior to September 30, 2016 and
the reserve for the class action settlement liability is $3.0
million in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2016.

Prosper is a pioneer of online marketplace lending that connects
borrowers and investors.


PTC INC: Settlement Reached in "Crandall" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-k Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has reached an
agreement-in-principle with the plaintiff to settle a class action
lawsuit.

On March 7, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-10471, was filed
against us and certain of our current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ostensibly on behalf of purchasers of our stock
during the period November 24, 2011 through July 29, 2015. The
lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, alleges (among other things) that, during that
period, PTC's public disclosures concerning investigations by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of
Justice into U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act matters in China
(the "China Investigation") were false and/or misleading.

"We have reached an agreement-in-principle with the plaintiff to
settle this lawsuit for an amount that is not material to our
results of operations and the associated liability has been
accrued in our fiscal 2016 results.  The settlement is conditioned
on execution and final court approval of formal settlement
documents.  Accordingly, we cannot predict the outcome of this
action nor when it will be resolved," the Company said.

PTC is a global computer software and services company.


QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Group File Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelcee Griffis and Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, report that
a group of consumers hit Qualcomm Inc. with a proposed class
action on Jan. 18 alleging it has a monopoly on modem chipset
technology that resulted in inflated retail prices for cell phones
and other devices, closely following a Federal Trade Commission
challenge to the company's practices.

The consumer suit comes on the heels of an FTC action launched on
Jan. 17 that claimed Qualcomm has been using its dominance over
the sale of semiconductors for mobile devices to wrangle higher
royalties and anti-competitive licensing terms.

According to the consumers' complaint, the company has been
passing on the undue costs by "maintaining its monopoly over the
modem chipset market and abusing the intellectual property rights
in underlying this technology."

The complaint says the high royalty premiums the company charged
device-makers resulted in consumers paying inflated prices for
phones and tablets.

The plaintiffs include people who bought cell phones, tablets and
other devices that incorporated modem chipset designs, which lets
a device "communicate and transmit voice and data across wireless
networks controlled by carriers, such as Verizon or Sprint," the
complaint says.

The claims echo the FTC's claims concerning the company's alleged
practice of granting licenses with strings attached.

Most component suppliers don't require device makers to pay for a
patent license on top of the price of the chip itself.  But
Qualcomm is the lone chipmaker to force its customers to sign a
separate patent license and pay royalties for devices that use
rival semiconductor chips, according to the FTC's suit.

This is not the first time in recent history that the company has
come under scrutiny for its practices.

The Korea Fair Trade Commission ruled in late December that
Qualcomm must pay an $854 million fine for forcing mobile phone
makers to pay royalties on broad patents covering modem chipsets
and for tying licensing agreements to chip supply numbers.

The consumer suit points to that fine and others to assert that
the buyers have ultimately paid the price for the business model,
saying Qualcomm has already attracted attention from regulators in
China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Europe and the United States.

"While Qualcomm's abusive and unfair licensing practices have
allowed it to rake in billions of dollars in undeserved profits,
these practices have not gone unnoticed by courts and foreign and
domestic regulatory agencies," the complaint says.

The class is represented by Bruce J. Wecker, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Michael Paul Lehmann, Samantha J. Stein and Christopher L. Lebsock
of Hausfeld LLP.

The case is Jordie Bornstein et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated, case
number 5:17-cv-00234, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Northern California.


REMINGTON ARMS: Nine State Attorney Generals Oppose Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that attorneys general from
nine states and the District of Columbia are urging a federal
judge to reject a proposed class action settlement involving
millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles including the
iconic Model 700, saying the agreement "fails to adequately
protect public safety."

The 38-page filing, which alleges that Remington has "long known"
that the guns can fire without the trigger being pulled, comes
less than one month before U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith in
Kansas City is scheduled to consider final approval of the
settlement in which Remington has agreed to replace the triggers
on most of the 7.5 million guns in question.

But the attorneys general, led by Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey on behalf of her counterparts in Hawaii, Maine,
Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, and the District of Columbia, say the judge should
reject the agreement because it does not adequately warn the
public of the danger they say the guns pose.

"A firearm that fires a bullet without the trigger being pulled is
perhaps the quintessential example of a dangerously unsafe
product," the filing says.

But in settlement notifications to the public and on a special
settlement web site, Remington's denial of any problem is
prominent.  The attorneys general say that could lull gun owners
into complacency.

"The notices fail to convey that correction of the defect is
urgent or that failure to replace the trigger could have life-
threatening consequences," the filing says.

Attorneys for Remington and class action plaintiffs did not
respond to e-mails seeking a comment, but Remington has
steadfastly maintained that the guns are safe and free of defects,
and that lawsuits linking the alleged defect to at least two-dozen
deaths are without merit.  The company has said it is seeking to
settle the class action case now to avoid "protracted litigation."

CNBC first reported in 2010 about allegations, which Remington has
denied, that the company covered up the alleged defect since
before the trigger design went on the market in the 1940s.  The
original CNBC investigation and a 2015 follow-up report are cited
in the states' filing.

In a separate filing on Jan. 17, attorneys for class action
plaintiffs, who stand to collect $12.5 million in fees if the
settlement is approved, defended Remington's continued denials.

"The fact is that defendants in product liability class actions,
defendants in general for that matter, deny liability," wrote
attorney Eric Holland.  "And while an admission of guilt would be
welcomed, Remington does not, and will not, accept that its
products are defective."

But the states say Remington's own internal documents prove the
company knows otherwise.

"The substantial number of documented incidents of Remington
rifles inadvertently firing without a trigger pull places
Remington under an obligation to warn rifle users of the potential
for harm," the filing says.

The attorneys general say one of the main reasons the settlement
notice falls short is that it does not describe what can happen if
the guns malfunction.  By contrast, the federal Consumer Product
Safety Act -- which does not apply to guns, but which the filing
says is "instructive" -- requires that consumers can readily
identify the "risks and potential injuries or deaths associated
with the product conditions."

Judge Smith has already raised multiple concerns about the
proposed settlement.  In December of 2015, he sent the parties
back to the drawing board after learning that only about 2,300 gun
owners had filed claims to have their guns repaired.

Since then, the parties have stepped up their campaign to notify
the public about the trigger replacement offer, adding radio
commercials and notices on social media.  As of Jan. 13, according
to a court filing, more than 19,000 customers have responded out
of 7.5 million guns sold.

Judge Smith has given the parties until Jan. 24 to respond to the
states' filing.


REMINGTON ARMS: February  14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Miniter, writing for Forbes, reports that a class-action
lawsuit, propelled by reporting from CNBC in 2010, was filed
against Remington Arms in 2013 claiming that some of Remington's
bolt-action rifles have gone bang even when know when pulled a
trigger.  The suit is now coming to a climax, if not a conclusion.
Depending on the outcome, the fault lines beneath this case could
send armies of trial attorneys, with mainstream media outlets
doing their marketing campaigns, after U.S. gun companies for the
next generation.

U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in Kansas City has a hearing
scheduled for February 14 to decide if a settlement agreement
between Remington and the plaintiffs is a fair deal all around.
The settlement would pay the plaintiff's attorneys $12.5 million.

Remington negotiated this deal and is hoping the judge will
approve it because, while the company vehemently denies the
allegations that firearms containing a trigger connector component
are defective or unsafe, it would rather avoid protracted
litigation.  Instead, basically Remington would pay to upgrade
triggers in Model 700 rifles made from 1962-2006, as well as
certain other rifles that use a trigger connector component.

That's the basic legal situation, but what's been misrepresented
in the media with this case could impact not just Remington, but
every U.S. gun manufacturer in the coming years.

After what CNBC called a "10-month investigation," CNBC aired
"Remington Under Fire" in 2010, an hour-long program claiming that
Remington's Model 700 rifle--the most popular bolt-action rifle
sold in America for more than a half century and counting--are
going off when someone closes a rifle's bolt or disengages a
safety mechanism.

The program was emotional and compelling.  It also feels very one-
sided. Remington had declined to step in front of CNBC's cameras,
but did send CNBC evidence countering the network's claims--
details that didn't make it into the CNBC program.  After this
experience, Remington produced its own rebuttal of CNBC's piece.

Remington's defense has been further complicated by the fact that
the Model 700's "Walker" trigger, which was standard on the Model
700 from 1962 to 2006, can be adjusted.  If a gunsmith does the
adjustments, and so keeps it within manufacturer recommended
specifications, the gun should be fine.  But if an amateur with a
screwdriver decides to tweak the trigger and takes it outside the
manufacturer's guidelines, it might not be safe.

Field & Stream's David E. Petzal put it this way: "If the original
700 trigger has a fault, it is that it can be fooled with by
anyone who has a small screwdriver.  The adjustments are delicate,
and if you don't know how (or know enough) to keep sufficient
engagement between the sear and the trigger connector, the rifle
can slam fire, or fire when it's dropped, or fire when the safety
is flipped off."

An unskilled person fooling around with any trigger system is like
an untrained car enthusiast installing a lift kit in a pickup
truck.  Now, it's their vehicle and that's fine.  But if the
modified truck rolls on a sharp turn because the lift kit made it
top heavy, it is hardly the truck maker's fault.

Most gun owners who wanted a "better" trigger in their Model 700s
installed--or more likely had someone install--an after-market
trigger, such as one from Timney, in their rifles.

CNBC did try to cast the millions of happy Model 700 owners as
na‹ve fools by showing footage of a Model 700 being used by a
police department in Portland, Maine, that repeatedly went bang
when the rifle's bolt was closed.  It's a scary, impactful little
piece of footage, but the CNBC reporter, Scott Cohn, didn't get
the police department's armorer in front of a camera to answer
whether the rifle's trigger mechanism had been toyed with.

CNBC's program used the tragic tale of the Barber family for the
spine of its narrative.  In 2000 a Remington Model 700 rifle
killed 9-year-old Gus Barber.  His mother shot him while she was
unloading the rifle.  She says she didn't touch the trigger.  The
rifle went off, the bullet went through a horse trailer and
fatally struck the boy.  It is hard to keep a clear mind when even
thinking about the horror of this tragedy.

Both Remington and Richard Barber, the boy's father, agree,
however, that the used rifle had its trigger adjusted by someone
other than Remington.  The rifle also had not been properly
maintained.  Richard Barber says the rifle was soaking wet, after
a day being used hunting in Montana, when it was handed to the
police after his son had been shot.  It then "sat in a plastic bag
in an evidence room for some time," says Mr. Barber.  At this
time, Barber says, the gun likely rusted.  CNBC never addressed
these facts, nor did they address the issue of safe and proper gun
handling in its program.

Remington settled with the Barber family for an undisclosed amount
in 2002; still, Richard Barber has understandably kept up a
campaign against Remington.  Over the years, Barber has amassed
filing cabinets filled with old Remington marketing materials,
with letters--obtained through court actions--from customers to
Remington about purported problems with Model 700 triggers and
more.  Mr. Barber has made himself into an expert on Remington and
its trigger systems; so much so, he says he has been paid
"handsomely" by plaintiffs' attorneys suiting Remington in other
suits related to Remington's "Walker" trigger system.  Mr. Barber
wants Remington to admit fault and to recall the millions of
rifles that use the "Walker" trigger.

Mr. Barber, however, says he is now no longer working with trial
attorneys.  He said, "All these cases have done is make attorneys
rich.  I just want justice to be done. Remington is a company
built on lies."

Mr. Barber has made the tens of thousands of Remington documents
he has obtained publicly available at remingtondocuments.com.

In 2014 Mr. Barber did try to strike a deal with Remington.  He
told the company he would stop his campaign against them, that he
would back the class-action settlement and that he would destroy
his Remington files if they paid him $1.5 million and gave him two
Remington Modular Sniper Rifles (these sell for about $21,000
apiece) with 4,000 rounds of ammunition.

Remington declined Mr. Barber's deal.

Meanwhile, CNBC's chief "expert" witness, who has been paid
repeatedly by trial attorneys to testify against several firearms
manufacturers, has shown himself to be less than trustworthy.  His
name is Jack Belk.  He has testified that Remington's Model 700
might go off without the trigger being pulled, though when he was
deposed in 2015, he testified that he was never able to duplicate
any of the alleged accidental discharges on the rifles involved in
his cases.

On December 1, 2016 Remington's attorneys filed a 22-page brief on
Belk, who has objected to the class-action settlement. The brief
contained video of Mr. Belk being deposed by Remington attorneys,
and the footage speaks for itself.

In its brief on Mr. Belk, Remington notes that though Belk is used
as an "expert" witness, he is not a mechanical engineer and has
never worked at a gun company.  His formal education is limited to
a GED he obtained in 1964 and to attending a gunsmith school in
1969.  Mr. Belk was actually employed for much of his life as a
traveling salesman.  During some periods in the 1970s and 1980s he
worked as a gunsmith and salesman at various firearm retail
stores.  Interestingly, when at these stores he sold Model 700s
yet didn't tell people he thought they were dangerous.  He
justified his silence by saying that "telling people that wouldn't
have been a good sales technique."  Also, Mr. Belk testified in
2015 that he owns a Model 700 rifle and says he is safe with it.

None of this was mentioned in the two hour-long CNBC programs Belk
was prominently featured in as he condemned Remington's bolt-
action rifles.  Like Mr. Barber, Mr. Belk filed an objection to
the class-action settlement and was given a platform by CNBC to
attack the proposed settlement.  Neither Mr. Belk's objection nor
CNBC's reporting refute Remington's attack on Mr. Belk's
credibility.  In a "Supplemental Brief in Response to Objector
Jack Belk," filed by Remington in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Remington also listed multiple
factual errors in a 2014 book Belk wrote on the company.

There is much, much more to this story.  Remington did pass on
updating its Walker trigger several times during its history.  In
2007 Remington responded to a marketplace suddenly energized by
new trigger mechanisms -- purred on by Savage Arms' innovative
AccuTrigger in 2002 -- by developing its X-Mark Pro trigger.  The
X-Mark Pro trigger is now standard on Model 700 rifles, but
Remington still makes and installs "Walker" triggers.  Also,
Remington's X-Mark Pro trigger went through a brief voluntary
recall due to some rifles discharging when no one had touched a
trigger -- in this case, a binding agent was at fault and the
problem has been fixed.

This class-action settlement, if it is approved, is no small deal
for Remington or for the U.S. firearms' industry.  It's hard to
blame Remington for wanting to end this class-action suit, even if
it would cost them millions to do so.


RENT-A-CENTER: Feb. 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Rent-A-
Center, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between July 27, 2015 and October 10, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased Rent-A-Center securities during the Class
Period may, no later than February 21, 2017, petition the Court to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/rent-a-center-
inc#join

Rent-A-Center shareholders who wish to discuss this action and
their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela,
Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at
info@ktmc.com.

Rent-A-Center operates a network of stores that provide consumer
electronics, appliances, computers, and furniture to consumers
under rental purchase agreements. In the summer of 2015, the
Company began implementing a point of sale ("POS") system and
customer credit program in an attempt to control inventory and
increase revenue and profitability. However, the Company's new POS
system was not properly implemented and caused severe harm to
Rent-A-Center's overall operations.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Rent-A-Center
and certain of its executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose the following: (1) that Rent-
A-Center could not properly implement its new POS; (2) that the
POS was performing extremely poorly, including several instances
where the system suffered complete outages; (3) that as a result,
the Company's credit system could not be implemented properly; (4)
that the Company could not meet revenue and profitability guidance
provided to investors; and (5) that, as such, the Company would
need to revise its prior guidance.  The complaint further alleges
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about
its business, operations and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On July 27, 2016, Rent-A-Center reported its second quarter 2016
financial and operational results.  For the quarter the Company
reported diluted earnings per share ("EPS") of $0.41, and further
reported that Core U.S. same store sales had decreased by 6.7%
driven by, among other things, "the impact and acceleration of the
point of sale system rollout."  Additionally, Rent-A-Center's
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") disclosed that "[t]he point of
sale implementation negatively impacted Core revenue in the second
quarter and reduced our portfolio making it necessary to revise
our outlook for the year."  On this news, shares of the Company's
stock declined $2.34 per share, or over 17%, to close on July 28,
2016 at $10.92 per share.

Then, on October 11, 2016, Rent-A-Center reported preliminary
third quarter 2016 financial and operational results.  Therein,
the Company disclosed that it expected to report that Core U.S.
same store sales for the third quarter would be down approximately
12% and that diluted EPS for the quarter would be between $0.05
and $0.15.  Additionally, Rent-A-Center's CEO disclosed that,
"[f]ollowing the implementation of our new point-of-sale system,
we experienced system performance issues and outages that resulted
in a larger than expected negative impact on Core sales."  On this
news, shares of Rent-A-Center's stock declined $3.70 per share, or
over 28%, to close on October 11, 2016 at $9.18 per share.

Rent-A-Center shareholders may, no later than February 21, 2017,
petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  For additional information, or to
learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/rent-a-center-inc#join
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.  For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
please visit www.ktmc.com


RIGHTSCORP INC: Court Awards Costs to Roxborough & Pietz Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Karen J Reif et al v. Rightscorp, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-09032 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer on Jan. 6,
2017, entered an order awarding costs in the amount of:

     -- $10,158.61 to Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani and
     -- $311.90 to the Pietz Law Firm.

The case was terminated on Nov. 28, 2016.

Rightscorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing
regarding final approval of the settlement was set for November
14, 2016, in the case, John Blaha v. Rightscorp, Inc , C.D. Cal.
(Original Complaint Filed November 21, 2014; First Amended
Complaint Filed March 9, 2015).

Nature of Matter: This matter seeks relief for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227). The
action is brought on behalf of the individual named plaintiff as
well as on behalf of a putative nationwide classes.

Progress of Matter to Date: This matter was previously captioned
with Karen J. Reif and Isaac Nesmith as lead plaintiffs. On March
9, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint replacing the
lead plaintiffs, dropping their second and third causes of action
for Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.) and Violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1788 et seq.)
(and dropping associated putative class claims), and naming BMG
Rights Management (US) LLC and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. as
additional defendants.

The First Amended Complaint also contained a cause of action for
Abuse of Process. In response to the Abuse of Process claim,
defendants brought a special motion to strike the claim under
California's anti-SLAPP statute. Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion was
granted on May 8, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's May 8, 2015 Order,
the Abuse of Process claim (and associated putative class claim)
was stricken from the case and plaintiff was ordered to pay
defendants' attorney's fees incurred in bringing the anti-SLAPP
motion.

Following the dismissal of Plaintiff's Abuse of Process claim, the
parties agreed to mediate the dispute and reached a settlement in
principal. On June 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement. On August 1, 2016, notice was sent to the class. A
hearing regarding final approval of the settlement was set for
November 14, 2016. The Company has recorded a reserve for the
estimated settlement of $200,000 related to this, which is net of
expected insurance proceeds of $250,000.


SALTY GATOR: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Waaytv.com reports that six ex-employees of a short-lived south
Huntsville restaurant are suing their former employer for unpaid
wages.

The six employees filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court on
Jan. 17 against Salty Gator Trading Company and owners Daniel J.
O'Conner III and Douglas Weaver Sr.

The ex-employees claim in the lawsuit that they were not paid for
the time they worked at the restaurant on South Memorial Parkway,
and they were not paid overtime when they were ordered to work
more than 40 hours a week.

The lawsuit states other employees received similar treatment and
asks for the unpaid wages as well as compensation and restitution.

The restaurant opened in October 2016 and closed down in early
December.


SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Recall
-------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that it took
Samsung many months to issue a recall of top-loading washing
machines that can basically shake themselves apart and send pieces
flying through consumers' laundry rooms. Now an Oklahoma man says
the company hasn't followed through on its recall of the machines.

In a lawsuit seeking class action status, Jerry Wells says the
remedies Samsung is offering aren't adequate.  Mr. Wells says he
has made numerous attempts to have his machine repaired, alleging
that although he made three appointments, no service person ever
showed up.

Mr. Wells isn't alone.  Many other consumers have complained that
Samsung either refused to repair their washer or, as in Wells'
case, failed to do so successfully.

"I was told they would refund my money," D.C. of Rosewell, Ga.,
wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review.  "Then my refund was denied
stating my receipt was 'blurry.' I honestly feel retailers should
step in and help consumers.  I now sit with a washing machine that
is not usable as it sounds like a jet ready to take off when it is
in use."

"My new Samsung washer has slammed itself all over the laundry
room. I have readjusted it on about every load.  It barely uses
any water and soap is stuck to my jeans.  I have never washed
bedding," said Cindy of Jacksonville, Ala.  "It goes nuts on
towels or jeans. Now I find out it is on recall. . . . I guess
they didn't want to refund my money."

The recall offered consumers the choice of a warranty extension
and in-home repair, a rebate on a new machine, or a complete
refund if the consumer had purchased the machine within 30 days of
the date the recall was issued.

Mr. Wells says he chose the warranty extension and repair, but
Samsung has failed to deliver.  His suit seeks to represent
consumers who purchased one of the 34 recalled models between
March 2011 and November 2016.  He is asking for a court order that
would require Samsung to replace parts or entire washers free of
charge.

Mr. Wells also asks the court to bar Samsung from continuing to
manufacture the top-loading machines, saying they are a hazard to
consumers' safety.

Samsung has conceded that it has received nine reports of injuries
resulting from flying parts, including a broken jaw and injured
shoulder. It has received hundreds of reports of damage to the
machine resulting from excessive vibration.

Mr. Wells' case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma.  He is represented by attorney
William B. Federman.


SAMSUNG: Must Face Lawsuit by Galaxy S4 Users
---------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis at Media Post reports Samsung must face a class-action
lawsuit by Galaxy S4 users who say the company misled them
regarding the device's storage capacity and performance, the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on January 19.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed in 2014 by Daniel Norcia,
a California resident who purchased his device from a Verizon
Wireless store. He alleged in a class-action complaint that
Samsung advertised the device as having 16 Gigabytes of storage,
but that preinstalled apps took up around half of that capacity.
The complaint also alleged that Samsung programmed the devices to
run faster than usual when they detect performance-measuring
tools.

Samsung argued that the lawsuit belonged in arbitration for
several reasons including that Norcia's agreement with Verizon
called for arbitration of disputes.

The 9th Circuit ruled against Samsung on January 19. "The Customer
Agreement is an agreement between Verizon Wireless and its
customer," a three-judge panel of the appellate said in the
decision. "Samsung is not a signatory. While the agreement itself
includes a number of terms governing the relationship between
Norcia and Verizon Wireless, including an arbitration provision,
nothing in the agreement references Samsung or any other party."
The opinion could play a role in a pending privacy battle between
the ad network Turn and Verizon Wireless users. In that matter,
Verizon Wireless subscribers Anthony Henson and William Cintron
alleged in a class-action complaint that Turn violated a consumer
protection law by using a controversial technology that enabled it
to track consumers for online ad purposes.

Those allegations centered on Verizon's "supercookies" -- headers
that Verizon previously injected into all unencrypted mobile
traffic. The headers (50-character alphanumeric strings) enabled
ad companies to compile profiles of users and serve them targeted
ads. The UIDHs also are known as "zombie" cookies, or
"supercookies" because they allow ad companies to recreate cookies
that users delete.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern
District of California granted Turn's motion to send the matter to
arbitration, based on the consumers' agreements with Verizon.
White said at the time that he agreed with Turn that the
consumers' allegations were closely connected to their subscriber
agreements with Verizon -- which call for arbitration of all
disputes.

Henson and Cintron recently asked the 9th Circuit to reverse that
ruling, arguing that their arbitration agreements were with
Verizon, not Turn. The ad network -- which recently settled
Federal Trade Commission charges over the tracking technology --
argues that the consumers' case belongs in arbitration because
their allegations are based on "interdependent and concerted
conduct" by itself and Verizon. The 9th Circuit said that it may
hold a hearing in that matter in April.


SEATTLE GENETICS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Genetics Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Seattle Genetics securities between October 27,
2016 and December 23, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in shares of Seattle Genetics
Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action on our website
-- www.whafh.com --

If you have purchased shares of Seattle Genetics Inc. within the
class period and would like to assist with the litigation process,
you may, no later than March 13, 2017, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

Seattle Genetics develops and commercializes targeted therapies
for the treatment of cancer worldwide.  Among the Company's
products in development is SGN-CD33A (vadastuximab talirine).
Throughout the Class Period, vadastuximab talirine was in clinical
trials for various applications, including, in relevant part: (i)
a Phase 1/2 trial in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as
a pre-conditioning regimen prior to an allogenic stem cell
transplant and as a maintenance therapy following transplant; (ii)
a Phase 1 trial evaluating vadastuximab talirine monotherapy,
including a subset of older  AML patients in combination with
hypomethylating agents; and (iii) a Phase 1 trial evaluating
vadastuximab talirine combination  treatment with 7+3
chemotherapy in newly diagnosed younger AML patients.

The filed Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) vadastuximab talirine presents a significant
risk of fatal hepatotoxicity; (ii) as such, Seattle Genetics had
overstated the viability of vadastuximab talirine as an AML
treatment; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Seattle
Genetics' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On December 27,  2016, Seattle Genetics issued a press release
and filed a Form  8-K with the  Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) announcing that the Food and Drug Administration had (FDA)
placed a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on several early
stage trials of the Company's experimental cancer drug,
vadastuximab talirine, to evaluate the potential risk of
hepatotoxicity.

On this news, Seattle Genetics' share price fell $9.50, or 15.36
%, to close at $52.36 on December 27, 2016.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Motley Rice & Cohen Milstein Named Lead Atty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise J. Casper signed on a Stipulation and Order
appointing:

     -- Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschafi mbH and
        Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System as Co-Lead
        Plaintiff; and

     -- the law firms Motley Rice and Cohen Milstein as Co-Lead
        Counsel and Hagens Berman as Liaison Counsel,

in the securities class action styled, Mazurek v. Seres
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11943 (D. Mass.).

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "On September
28, 2016, 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 entitled Mariusz Mazurek v.
Seres Therapeutics, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit alleges violations
of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended due to allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions about our clinical trials for
our product candidate SER-109 in the Company's public disclosures
between June 25, 2015 and July 29, 2016. The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, damages in connection with our allegedly inflated
stock price between June 25, 2015 and July 29, 2016 as a result of
those allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and costs."

"This matter is at a very early stage of the legal process, and as
a result, the Company is not able to estimate a range of possible
loss.

"We are vigorously defending against all claims asserted. The
Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading. Since an estimate
of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time,
no accruals have been recorded as of September 30, 2016."

On November 28, 2016, several entities sought appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel:

     -- Claiming a loss of $371,173.80, Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschafi mbH filed a motion to be appointed Lead
Plaintiff in the Action and for approval of its selection of the
law firm Motley Rice LLC as Lead Counsel for the Class;

     -- with a loss of $22,44.09, Dariusz Lazarczyk filed a motion
to be appointed Lead Plaintiff in the Action and for approval of
its selection of the law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead
Counsel for the Class;

     -- with a loss of $176,669.52, Steven Taylor filed a motion
to be appointed Lead Plaintiff in the Action and for approval of
its selection of the law firm The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead
Counsel for the Class;

     -- With a combined loss of $507,173.80, Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System, Fred Fesel, and Richard and
Christine Kennedy filed a motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff
and for Cohen Milstein and Hagens Berman to serve together as Lead
Counsel, or to serve as Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel
respectively.

Plaintiff Mariusz Mazurek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Levi Korsinsky LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: 212-363-7500
     Fax: 866-367-6510
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com

Plaintiff Dariusz Lazarczyk is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Reich, Esq.
     Kenneth Reich Law, LLC
     745 Boylston Street, 7th Floor
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: 781-608-7267
     Email: kreich@kennethreichlaw.com

Plaintiff Steven Taylor is represented by:

     Erica C Mirabella, Esq.
     132 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: 617-580-8270
     Fax: 617-583-1905
     Email: erica@mirabellallc.com

Defendant Seres Therapeutics, Inc. is represented by:

     John D. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
     Ropes & Gray LLP
     Prudential Tower
     800 Boylston St.
     Boston, MA 02199-3600
     Tel: 617-951-7566
     Fax: 617-951-7050
     Email: jdonovan@ropesgray.com

          - and -

     Daniel V. Ward, Esq.
     Ropes & Gray LLP
     Prudential Tower
     800 Boylston St.
     Boston, MA 02199-3600
     Tel: 617-951-7703
     Fax: 617-235-9766
     Email: daniel.ward@ropesgray.com

Ropes & Gray also represents individual defendants.

Movant Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH is
represented by:

     Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
     Motley Rice LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464-4399
     Tel: 843-216-9000
     Email: glevin@motleyrice.com

Movant Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System is represented
by:

     Lance Oliver, Esq.
     Motley Rice, LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9000
     Email: loliver@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Meredith Miller, Esq.
     Motley Rice LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9000
     Email: mbmiller@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: 617-482-3700
     Fax: 617-482-3003
     Email: Tom@hbsslaw.com

Movant Fred Fesel is represented by by Motley Rice.

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. is a microbiome therapeutics platform
company developing a novel class of biological drugs, which are
designed to treat disease by restoring the function of a dysbiotic
microbiome.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Background Check
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that Starbucks Corp.
is facing a class action lawsuit filed by a Colorado man who
claims he was denied a job based on an allegedly inaccurate
background check and is suing the coffeehouse chain for violations
of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), according to a
report from Top Class Actions.

Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario
claims Starbucks denied him a job based on allegedly inaccurate
results of a background check without giving him a proper chance
to correct those results and thus violated required provisions of
the FCRA, which governs background checks in the U.S.

In March 2016, Mr. Rosario applied for a job at a Starbucks in
Castle Rock, Colorado.  A background check performed on him listed
several criminal records from Pennsylvania, some of which involved
violent crime and drug-related charges.

Starbucks then sent Mr. Rosario a letter dated April 20 informing
him that the results of his Starbucks background check did not
meet the company's requirements.  But by the time Mr. Rosario
received the letter, he claims, Starbucks had already removed him
from consideration for employment.

Top Class Actions reports that Rosario challenged the allegedly
inaccurate background check results in May 2016, and the Consumer
Reporting Agency (CRA) that performed the background check
corrected the errors by May 19, and forwarded a corrected report
to Starbucks.

However, Mr. Rosario claims Starbucks declined to change its
decision to deny him a job and failed to give him an opportunity
to dispute the contents of his background check in violation the
pre-adverse action notification requirements in the FCRA, Top
Class Actions reports.

The case is Rosario v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-01951, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.


STEEL & TUBE: Canterbury Homeowners Invited to Join Mesh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Doudney, writing for Christchurch Star, reports that about
3,000 Canterbury homeowners have been sent letters inviting them
to join a class action lawsuit against three companies that
supplied allegedly substandard steel mesh.

Auckland firm Adina Thorn Lawyers has proposed taking the lawsuit
against the companies which are also set to be prosecuted by the
Commerce Commission this year under the Fair Trading Act.

The steel mesh, alleged to be below the national building
standard, is typically used in concrete slab foundations and
driveways.

The letter stated that if the companies were found guilty in the
Commerce Commission's prosecution they would face fines but this
was "very unlikely" to deliver financial compensation to affected
home owners.

"Unless the owners of affected properties take legal action, they
will likely face losses in terms of re-sale values, as well as
possible complications with insurance claims in the event of an
earthquake," it said.

The three companies were not named by the Commerce Commission but
one, Steel & Tube, chose to identify itself.  Steel & Tube said
the commission's decision in relation to itself was about the
application of testing methodologies and mistaken use of a testing
laboratories logo on test certificates, not the performance
characteristics of its seismic mesh.

Adina Thorn Lawyers senior associate Richard Hart said homes which
received the letters had been chosen based on having had a
building consent issued during the four years that the non-
complying mesh was being supplied.

He acknowledged the firm did not know whether it had been used in
any of the specific homes it sent letters to.

The 3000 was just a subset of potentially affected homes with the
total number "too difficult to obtain at this stage," Mr. Hart
said.

"This is a potentially serious problem, we don't want to alarm
people but on the other hand it's an opportunity for people to
perhaps find out a bit more and find out whether or not [joining
the lawsuit] is worthwhile."

Letters had been sent to new Auckland subdivisions as well but
Mr Hart said Canterbury had the potential to be worse affected due
to the possibility of future seismic activity in the region.

Steel & Tube communications manager Tanya Katterns said Adina
Thorn had not provided information to support its claims that re-
sale values and insurance claims could be affected.

"We believe our seismic mesh ensures building safety," she said.

Last year Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment general
manager building system performance Derek Baxter said he was not
concerned that the mesh posed a safety risk for newly built houses
and was confident they would still comply with the Building Code.

The Structural Engineering Society has also said homeowners should
not be unnecessarily concerned about the steel mesh in their
houses.

The city council referred questions from The Star to the Commerce
Commission.  A spokeswoman for the commission said it did not wish
to comment on the class action.


STOEL RIVES: Asks Court to Nix Suit Based on Speculative Theories
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado at Law 360 reported that Stoel Rives LLP asked a
Florida federal court on January 17 to toss a proposed class
action accusing the law firm of assisting in Tri-Med Corp.'s $17
million Ponzi scheme, saying the suit is based on "speculative and
conclusory theories" and that Tri-Med's receiver has no standing
to bring it.

The Oregon-based law firm argued that Tri-Med's receiver has no
standing under Florida law or Eleventh Circuit precedent to pursue
tort claims for aiding and abetting, conspiracy and professional
negligence against third parties arising out of an operation that
was a fraudulent scheme from the beginning.

Stoel Rives asked for the unjust enrichment and fraudulent
transfer claims to be dismissed as well, arguing that neither the
firm nor the attorney named in the suit, Jodi Johnson, conducts
enough business in Florida to put them under the jurisdiction of
the court.

"When stripped of its speculation, conflation and sensationalized
conclusions, the complaint contains no plausible basis for Stoel
Rives and Johnson's alleged knowledge of or participation in the
Tri-Med Ponzi scheme," the law firm said.

The investors' complaint, originally filed in April in Pinellas
County before being removed to federal court, alleges that Stoel
Rives and accounting firm Charles Corces PA helped with and
legitimized Tri-Med's scheme, which purportedly involved offering
unregistered securities related to the company's purchase of
accounts receivable stemming from the medical treatment of
accident victims.

The complaint accuses of the law firm of entering the scheme in
late 2012, initially advising Tri-Med to "immediately" halt its
program of selling the unregistered securities in light of the
possibility of sanctions and a Florida Office of Financial
Regulation investigation, only to allegedly take steps to ensure
the company could continue operating and investors would never
learn of the fraud.

The firm even responded to subpoenas on the company's behalf when
Florida's financial regulators launched an investigation into the
company in March 2014, according to the suit.

As a result of the probe, Tri-Med was charged with violating
Florida securities laws and was immediately ordered into
receivership in an attempt to return funds to investors. The
receivership has since extended to a number of Tri-Med affiliates,
according to Office of Financial Regulation records.

The investors claim the accounting firm also knowingly aided Tri-
Med in operating the investment scheme and enabled the company's
central insiders to "misappropriate millions of dollars in
assets."

The investors tried to get the court to remand the suit back to
state court, arguing that the case falls under the local
controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act because
almost 90 percent of the proposed class members are Florida
citizens. But the federal court denied their motion in December.

The receiver is represented by Gianluca Morello, Michael S. Lamont
and Jared Perez of Wiand Guerra King PA. The investors are
represented by Robert W. Pearce of Robert Wayne Pearce PA.

Stoel Rives and Johnson are represented by Dennis P. Waggoner and
Joshua C. Webb of Hill Ward & Henderson PA. Counsel information
for the accounting firm and Corces was not immediately available.

The case is Wiand et al. v. Stoel Rives LLP et al., case number
8:16-cv-01133, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.

The underlying securities case is Florida Office of Financial
Regulation v. Tri-Med Corp. et al., case number 14-001695-CI, in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida.


SUNPOWER CORP: Plaintiffs Must File Consolidated Suit by March 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, KENNETH BRISTOW, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants. JAY PATEL, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 16-cv-04710-RS, 16-cv-04915-RS (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Richard Seeborg entered a "Stipulation And
[Proposed] Order (1) Establishing Master Case File; (2) Setting
Date For Filing Of Consolidated Complaint And Briefing Schedule;
And (3) Continuing Initial Case Management Conference."

The Stipulation provides that:

     1. A Master File shall be established for the consolidated
        proceedings in the Consolidated Action. The docket number
        for the Master File shall be Master File No. 3:16-cv-
        04710-RS. The original of this Order shall be filed by
        the Clerk in the Master File.

     2. All documents previously filed to date in any of the
        Cases consolidated are deemed a part of the record in the
        Consolidated Action.

     3. This Order shall govern all subsequently filed actions
        pertaining to or arising from the same facts and
        circumstances as those set forth in the actions and that
        properly belong as part of the Consolidated Action.

     4. Plaintiffs shall file the consolidated complaint by
        March 9, 2017.

     5. Defendants shall file a response to the complaint by
        May 8, 2017.

     6. Should Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on or before
        May 8, 2017, Plaintiffs shall have 60 days to file an
        opposition, and Defendants shall have 30 days to file a
        reply brief.

     7. The Parties shall meet and confer as to an appropriate
        hearing date.

On December 9, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions and appointed Brower Priven, A Professional Corporation,
as lead counsel, and Finkelstein Thompson LLP, to serve as liaison
counsel.

A copy of the Stipulation is available at https://goo.gl/1VliOz
from Leagle.com.

A copy of the Consolidation Order is available at
https://goo.gl/os9ezZ from Leagle.com.

SunPower said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended October 2, 2016, that five motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff were filed and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motions on December 8, 2016.

Three of the original five applicants later abandoned their
motions, in light of the showings made by the others. The two
remaining competitors were:

     (1) proposed lead plaintiff Mundeog Seol, with the class to
be represented by Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, as
lead counsel, and Finkelstein Thompson, LLP, to serve as liaison
counsel, and

     (2) a group calling itself "the SunPower Investor Group,"
with the class to be represented by the The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
as lead counsel, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, to serve as
liaison counsel.

On August 16, 2016 and August 26, 2016, two securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors (the "Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's
securities from February 17, 2016 through August 9, 2016 (the
"Class Period"). The substantially identical complaints allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Sec.240.10b-5. The complaints were filed following the issuance of
the Company's August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance
and generally allege that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Three shareholder derivative actions have been filed in federal
court, purporting to be brought on the Company's behalf against
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors
based on the same events alleged in the securities class action
lawsuits described above. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant. These derivative actions were filed on September 16,
2016, September 20, 2016, and October 17, 2016, respectively. The
plaintiffs assert claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties,
unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets for the period
February 2016 through the present and generally allege that the
defendants made or caused the Company to make materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. The plaintiffs also claim that the alleged conduct is a
breach of the Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and
that defendants, including members of the Company's Audit
Committee, breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure
the adequacy of the Company's internal controls, and by causing or
allowing the Company to disseminate false and misleading
statements in the Company's SEC filings and other disclosures.

On October 27, 2016, two shareholder derivative actions purporting
to be brought on the Company's behalf were brought in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Santa Clara against certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors based
on the same events alleged in the securities class action and
federal derivative lawsuits , and alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The two securities class action lawsuits and the federal
derivative actions filed on September 16, 2016 and September 20,
2016 have all been related by the Court and assigned to one judge.

The Company anticipates that the October 17, 2016 derivative
action will also be deemed related to the other four actions.

The Company is currently unable to determine if the resolution of
these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

SunPower Corporation is a global energy company that delivers
complete solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power
plant customers worldwide through an array of hardware, software,
and financing options and through utility-scale solar power system
construction and development capabilities, operations and
maintenance ("O&M") services, and "Smart Energy" solutions.


T-MOBILE USA: Can Enforce Arbitration Provision in TCPA Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew C. Glass, Esq., Gregory N. Blase, Esq., Roger L. Smerage,
Esq., and Matthew T. Houston, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article
for Lexology, report that the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington ("Court") recently allowed a defendant to
enforce the arbitration provision in a TCPA plaintiff's wireless
agreements even though the defendant was not a party to the
wireless agreements.  The plaintiff in Rahmany, et al. v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01416-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
brought suit against Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc. and the
plaintiff's wireless carrier, alleging that the companies violated
the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and
a putative class of individuals.  Shortly after filing suit, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the wireless carrier.  Subway,
however, sought to enforce the mandatory arbitration clause in the
agreement between the plaintiff and his wireless carrier, even
though Subway was not a party to that agreement.  The clause
required the plaintiff to individually arbitrate disputes unless
the plaintiff opted out of the provision within 30 days of signing
the contract, which the plaintiff had not done.

In granting Subway's motion to compel arbitration, the Court
determined that (1) the plaintiff's claims against Subway fell
within the "scope" of the arbitration agreement because the
agreement applied to all disputes "in any way related" to the
wireless agreement, and (2) the plaintiff had alleged that the
text messages were sent by wireless carrier on behalf of Subway.
The Court further concluded that the arbitration agreement was not
unconscionable because the plaintiff had the option to
opt-out of mandatory arbitration and had failed to do so.
Finally, the Court concluded that equitable estoppel required that
the Court enforce the arbitration agreement against the plaintiff
where (1) the claims against Subway were intertwined with the
wireless agreement, and (2) the plaintiff alleged interdependent
conduct by the carrier and Subway.  As a result, the Court
dismissed the pending action, concluding that, because all "claims
must be submitted to arbitration, [the Court lacked] jurisdiction,
and dismissal [was] appropriate."


TAKATA CORP: New Mexico AG Sues Over Faulty Air Bag Inflators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Montoya Bryan, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas is suing Japanese
manufacturer Takata and a long list of automakers in connection
with the sale of cars with dangerous air bag inflators.

The attorney general's office argues in a lawsuit filed on
Jan. 20 that the manufacturers had a duty to ensure their products
were safe and that concealment of air bag defects amounted to
unfair, deceptive and unconscionable trade practices under New
Mexico law.

Takata already has agreed to pay $1 billion in fines and
restitution as part of plea agreement with the U.S. Justice
Department over the years-long scheme to conceal the deadly defect
in its inflators.  It also faces class-action lawsuits as well as
litigation filed last year by the state of Hawaii.

Takata spokesman Jared Levy declined comment on Jan. 20.

Aside from targeting the air bag manufacturer, New Mexico's case
also spreads the blame to numerous automakers that used the faulty
bags in their vehicles.  The complaint lists dozens of models that
include some of the most popular vehicles in the U.S.

The state is seeking civil penalties for each defective air bag
that entered the New Mexico market and penalties for each day the
manufacturers misrepresented the safety of their products.  State
prosecutors also are demanding a jury trial.

Takata inflators can explode with too much force, spewing shrapnel
into drivers and passengers.  At least 11 people have been killed
in the U.S. and 16 worldwide because of the defect. More than 180
have been injured.

The problem touched off the largest automotive recall in U.S.
history covering 42 million vehicles and 69 million inflators.
Officials have said it will take years for the recalls to be
completed.

Unlike most other air bag makers, Takata's inflators use explosive
ammonium nitrate to fill the bags in a crash.  But the chemical
can deteriorate over time and burn too fast, blowing apart a metal
canister.

In its complaint, New Mexico argues that Takata understood the
risks from the time the company began investigating ammonium
nitrate in the late 1990s.

The lawsuit does not document any deaths or injuries in
New Mexico.  It does detail some of the deadly cases elsewhere,
saying the manufacturers conducted investigations but tried to
minimize the incidents and failed to alert safety regulators to
the defects.

The attorney general's office is bringing the case against Takata
and the car makers with help from Grant and Eisenhofer, a national
law firm that handles class-action securities litigation and major
consumer protection lawsuits.

Mr. Balderas worked with the same firm in filing the state's suit
against Volkswagen over the emissions scandal last year.


TCF FINANCIAL: Watchdog Sues Over Exorbitant Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Horwitz, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal consumer finance regulators said on Jan. 19 they were
suing TCF Financial Corp., alleging the bank deceived consumers so
it could charge them exorbitant overdraft fees.

Banks' overdraft fee tactics have long been considered predatory
by consumer advocates.  Such fees, which are charged when
customers overspend their bank accounts, largely fall upon lower-
income account holders.

Running as much as $35 per overdraft, the fees comprised a $180
million per year income stream for TCF, a bank with $21 billion in
assets and with 360 branches in eight states.  By law, customers
must actively choose to enroll in overdraft programs before they
can be charged overdraft fees.  But to maximize its profits, TCF
was accused of tricking customers into believing that overdraft
features were a mandatory part of their checking account.

"TCF bulldozed its way through protections against automatic
overdraft enrollment," Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Director Richard Cordray said in a statement.

A bank spokesman, Mark Goldman, said the bank intended to
vigorously defend itself in court.  "We believe we have strong,
principled defenses to its complaint," Mr. Goldman wrote in an
email to the AP.

To convince customers to sign up for its overdraft coverage
programs, the CFPB alleged, the bank also misled its customers
about the costs of overdrafts and incentivized its staff to
recruit customers with aggressive sales tactics.

"I don't think (new customers) understood that they, that they
were exposing themselves to additional fees," one TCF branch
manager testified, according to the CFPB suit.

A 2015 analysis by consulting firm Compass Point found that TCF
derived far more overdraft income from its customers than all but
one other major bank, Regions Financial.  Among TCF executives,
the bank's skill at extracting the fees was a point of pride, the
lawsuit alleged: TCF chairman and former chief executive William
Cooper named his boat "Overdraft."

The bureau's action follows an investigation stretching back more
than one year. Last November, TCF warned shareholders that the
bureau might target its overdraft policies as "unfair, deceptive
and abusive."

A previous wave of class-action suits over other banks' similar
practices led to hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements
and judgements against banks such as Wells Fargo, which one judge
wrote had laid "a snare for the unwary" and subjected its
customers to a "bone-crushing multiplication" of fees, according
to a 2010 judgment.


TD AMERITRADE: Appeals in Order Routing Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that appeals
remain pending related to the class action lawsuits over order
routing.

Five putative class action complaints were filed between August
and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client
orders. The cases were filed in, or transferred to, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.;
Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints in Zola,
Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide
clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the market
venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in
Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its clients'
non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates
of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution
on these kinds of orders.

The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b)
and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of
Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust
enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various
kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief.

The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class
action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered
Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five
actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the
five lawsuits.

On March 23, 2016, the District Judge entered an order dismissing
all of the state law claims in the five actions, denying the
motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case,
and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend
their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. None of the
plaintiffs in the other four actions filed an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker and Verdieck cases filed
notices of appeal. The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file a
notice of appeal and that case is considered closed.

The Klein case is proceeding in the District Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade is a provider of securities brokerage services and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders and independent registered investment advisors ("RIAs").


TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Hartford Wants Class Action Coverage Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that Hartford Fire
Insurance Co. asked the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 17 to reverse a
California federal judge's ruling that it must defend Tempur-Sealy
International Inc. in a proposed class action alleging that the
mattress company lied in marketing materials, arguing that the
underlying complaint doesn't seek any damages covered by
Hartford's policy.

In an appellate brief, Hartford contended that U.S. District Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. erred in finding that it has to defend
Tempur-Sealy in the putative class action, which alleges that the
company has made false statements about a chemical odor in its
mattresses that has purportedly made some customers sick.

Hartford said that its duty to defend has not been triggered
because the underlying suit doesn't seek any covered damages for
bodily injury or property damage. Furthermore, the insurer argued,
the suit doesn't allege an accidental occurrence as defined by
Tempur-Sealy's policy.

"[The complaint] alleges only that the plaintiffs were
fraudulently induced to purchase Tempur-Pedic's products and
thereby suffered economic harm," the insurer argued.  "Moreover,
the complaint actually denies that the Todd plaintiffs are making
any claim for damages because of physical injury."

A Tempur-Sealy representative did not immediately respond to a
request for comment late on Jan. 17.

A group of consumers led by Alvin and Melody Todd sued Tempur-
Sealy in California federal court in October 2013, alleging that
the company misrepresented in marketing materials that its foam
mattresses and pillows have an odor that is allergen-free and will
dissipate over time. In reality, the customers say, that chemical
odor has made them sick.

The Todds alleged that Tempur-Sealy knew there were problems with
the smell and the attendant physical complaints, including
headache, nausea, asthma, eye and throat irritation and allergic
reactions, but still assured customers the scent was harmless,
according to court documents.

The judge overseeing the Todds' case refused the plaintiffs' bid
for class certification last fall.  That ruling is currently on
appeal.

Several months after the Todds filed their complaint, Hartford
lodged the instant suit, seeking a declaration that a series of
comprehensive general liability policies it issued to Tempur-Sealy
do not cover the underlying claims.

In January 2016, Judge Gilliam ruled in the mattress company's
favor, finding that, although the underlying plaintiffs did not
seek damages due to bodily injury, their complaint could
potentially be amended to state such claims.

Hartford said in its appellate brief that the district judge's
analysis was flawed, noting that the class action plaintiffs
explicitly indicated that they were not seeking any damages on
account of physical injury.  According to the insurer, the
consumers' decision to seek solely economic loss damages was a
deliberate strategy to boost their chances of achieving class
certification.

By holding that Hartford had a duty to defend, the insurer argued,
Judge Gilliam ignored a California appellate court's precedential
2002 decision in Low v. Golden Eagle Insurance Co., which
established that, even if an underlying plaintiff alleges bodily
injuries, an insurer has no defense obligation if the plaintiff
does not actually seek damages for those injuries.

Hartford further contended that it has no duty to defend because
Tempur-Sealy wasn't sued over an accidental occurrence within the
terms of its policies.  In fact, the Todd plaintiffs claim that
Tempur-Sealy engaged in an intentional pattern of fraud, which by
definition cannot be an accident.

"Fraud is, necessarily and by definition, intentional rather than
accidental, and therefore fraud cannot be an occurrence under a
liability policy, as many cases have held," Hartford said.

Hartford is represented by James P. Ruggieri --
jruggeri@goodwin.com -- and Katherine M. Hance --
khance@goodwin.com -- of Shipman & Goodwin LLP and by Gary T.
LaFayette -- glafayette@lkclaw.com -- and Melissa A. Dubbs --
mdubbs@lkclaw.com -- of Lafayette & Kumagai LLP.

Tempur-Sealy is represented by Nicholas Cramb -- NCCramb@mintz.com
-- Evan Sean Nadel, Daniel S. Harary -- DSHarary@mintz.com -- and
Heidi Lawson -- HALawson@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky and Popeo PC.

The case is Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Tempur-Sealy
International Inc., case number 16-16056, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


TESLA MOTORS: South Korean Celebrity Files SUA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Doyle, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Tesla Model X owner has filed a sudden unintended
acceleration class-action lawsuit against Tesla Motors Inc. after
his electric sport-utility vehicle crashed through the garage and
into his home while being parked.

The owner, Ji Chang Son, is a South Korean celebrity who lives in
California.  According to a news release issued by Mr. Son's
attorneys, Tesla claims that Son has threatened to use his
celebrity status to hurt Tesla unless a financial agreement could
be reached.

Mr. Son claims he was turning into his driveway on Sept. 10, 2016,
at 6 miles per hour and had just opened his garage when the car
suddenly accelerated through the garage into the living room.

"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 the
plaintiff's living room," the lawsuit said.

Tesla said in a statement in a story on www.cnbc.com that it has
conducted a full investigation and disagrees with Mr. Son.

"The evidence, including data from the car, conclusively shows
that the crash was the result of Mr. Son pressing the accelerator
pedal all the way to 100 percent," a Tesla spokesperson said.

Tesla said it has protections against pedal misapplication.

Bryant Walker Smith, a former transportation engineer who teaches
technology and mobility law at the University of South Carolina
School of Law, said that evidence will be key in this case.

"Cases like this require evidence rather than speculation, and I
look forward to seeing that evidence presented and analyzed,"
Mr. Smith told The Northern California Record.  "And I say this
having taught an entire course on the sudden unintended-
acceleration debacle from a decade ago."

The lawsuit cites several other sudden acceleration complaints
registered with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

Attorneys managing the lawsuit said Tesla has sold about 16,000
Model X SUVs in the U.S., all of which use electronic
acceleration-control systems by which complex computer and sensor
systems communicate an accelerator pedal's position to the
computers, telling the SUVs what their speeds should be.

"Without more information, it would be irresponsible of me to
speculate on technical possibility or plausibility in this case,"
Mr. Smith said.  "At some point in the future, cars that go
through walls will probably be considered defective -- but that
doesn't seem to be the claim in this case."

Mr. Son is represented by McCune Wright Arevalo LLP and Stradling
Yocca Carlson & Rauth, P.C. McCune Wright Arevalo LLP in 2009
filed the first class-action lawsuit against Toyota alleging that
defects were resulting in sudden acceleration events.  Toyota
settled more than 300 private-injury and wrongful-death lawsuits,
settled the class claims that were valued at up to $1.6 billion,
and paid more than $1.2 billion in fines to the federal
government.

One of Mr. Son's attorneys said there are plenty of similarities
in the two lawsuits.

"What we saw in Toyota was that the number of sudden-acceleration
events occurring with Toyota vehicles was significantly higher
than other manufacturers, meaning that something was going on
other than 'driver error,'" attorney Richard McCune said in the
news release.  "What the complaint alleges is that the ratio of
SUA events for Tesla versus the rate found in the literature on
other vehicles is staggering -- far higher than what was reported
for Toyota vehicles."


THAILAND: Disabled Activists Mull Class Action Over BTS Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sasiwan Mokkhasen, writing for Khaosod English, reports that
hundreds of disabled right activists were set to converge at the
Civil Court on Jan. 20 to file a class action lawsuit against City
Hall for failing to obey a court order to make all BTS Skytrain
stations wheelchair accessible.

Two years after prevailing in a landmark Supreme Court ruling,
activist group Transportation for All said on Jan. 18 it decided
to file the suit after a year had passed without the Bangkok
Metropolitan Administration, or BMA, adding one operable elevator
to its inaccessible stations.

"We have closely monitored and found the BMA lacks responsibility
and efficiency," the group wrote in a statement.

The suit asks the court to fine the city 1,000 baht per day for
each plaintiff to join the class since the court's original Jan.
21, 2016, deadline for the work to be completed.

After the last of several promises passed without the work
completed, City Hall has offered yet another vague deadline.

A City Hall representative said on Jan. 18 they were not yet aware
of the lawsuit.

"If they want to sue, that is their right, and we cannot ask them
not to do that," said Prapas Luangsirinapha, who now oversees the
project.  "But the disabled, they didn't suffer any losses, did
they?"

He said it's still possible for disabled commuters to seek help by
contacting a guard to lug them up the escalator.

Prapas, who is responsible for coordinating with the developer,
said the project has had a lot of land ownership issues, and he
has done his best.

"I will just have to go to court and explain the same to them," he
said on Jan. 18.  "The worst will just be I got moved to another
position."

Project developer Seri Construction said Jan. 16 it had no
definite date for completing the work but "hoped" to see some of
the stations open in the coming months.

The landmark ruling in January 2015 gave the city one year to
complete the work.

In January 2016, City Hall apologized for failing to meet the
court-imposed time frame.  It then promised that every station
would have operating elevators by the end of September.

The project has also changed leadership.  When former Bangkok
Gov. Sukhumbhand Paribatra was removed by the junta in August, the
deputy governor who was responsible for the project also left City
Hall.

Developer Seri previously said it expected elevators at seven
stations to be running by the end of September. Now it says it
will be another four months.

Itthiphol Boonrak, the developer's project manager, said he now
hopes elevators at some stations will be operating by early
February.

"I pray it can be opened, at at least one station," he said on
Jan. 16, unable to give a more concrete date of completion.

Though unfinished construction sites can be seen at many stations,
there does not appear to be visible work underway.  Itthiphol said
the elevator housings and shafts were mostly ready and only
waiting for electricians to wire them for operation.

So why has it taken over two years to install elevators? He gave
the same reasons offered the last time a reporter called to
inquire.  He said workers only have limited hours as they can only
work after the BTS system shuts down, and issues with the
underground infrastructure had made it more difficult than
expected.

The disabled rights activists who brought the original suit and
have pushed the issue for years said they were not pleased.

"How come City Hall doesn't have any measures to deal with a
developer who fail to satisfy contracts?" Manit Inpim said on
Jan. 16.

The contract stipulates that City Hall must fine developer if it
fails to complete the work as specified.

Filing as a class was not possible when they first sued the BMA,
which owns the Skytrain system.  A law enabling class-action suits
went into effect December 2015.  Since then only one such suit has
been filed against a gold mine operator.

A City Hall transportation official said they were still urging
Seri to get the work done and remained hopeful some progress would
be made despite the failures so far.

"We will open the first four stations in April," said Prapas.


TURTLE BEACH: Nevada Supreme Court Appeal Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal in a
shareholders class action remains pending in the Nevada Supreme
Court.

On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric)
announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant
to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership
interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately
20% ownership interest in the combined company.

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as
defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided
and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly
violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited
to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.

The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court, which held
a hearing on the Company's petition for review on September 1,
2015.

After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested supplemental
briefing, which the parties completed on October 13, 2015. The
Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law Section of the
Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by December 3, 2015 and
briefing was completed on that date. The Company believes that the
plaintiffs' claims against it are without merit.

Turtle Beach Corporation, headquartered in San Diego, California
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is an audio
technology company with expertise and experience in developing,
commercializing and marketing innovative products across a range
of large addressable markets under the Turtle Beach(R) and
HyperSound(R) brands.


TYSON FOODS: Updates on Six Employee Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended October 1, 2016, provided updates on six
lawsuits involving the Company's beef, pork and prepared foods
plants in which certain present and past employees allege that the
Company failed to compensate them for the time it takes to engage
in pre- and post-shift activities, such as changing into and out
of protective and sanitary clothing and walking to and from the
changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and various state laws. The plaintiffs seek
back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. Each case is proceeding in its
jurisdiction.

   * Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D.
Iowa, February 6, 2007 -- "A jury trial was held involving our
Storm Lake, Iowa pork plant which resulted in a jury verdict in
favor of the plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws
for pre- and post-shift work activities. The trial court also
awarded the plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total
damages awarded in the amount of $5,784,758. The plaintiffs'
counsel has also filed an application for attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $2,692,145. We appealed the jury's
verdict and trial court's award to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and
judgment on August 25, 2014, and we filed a petition for rehearing
on September 22, 2014, which was denied. We filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was
granted on June 8, 2015, and oral arguments before the Supreme
Court occurred on November 10, 2015. On March 22, 2016, the
Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's rulings and remanded
to the trial court to allocate the lump sum award among the class
participants."

   * Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008 -- "The trial court in this case,
which involves our Perry and Waterloo, Iowa pork plants,
decertified the state law class and granted other pre-trial
motions that resulted in judgment in our favor with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify
this judgment."

   * Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois, January
2, 2008; and DeVoss v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats,
C.D. Illinois, March 2, 2011 -- "These cases involve our Joslin,
Illinois beef plant and are in their preliminary stages."

     * Dozier, Southerland, et al. v. The Hillshire Brands
Company, E.D. North Carolina, September 2, 2014 -- "This case
involves our Tarboro, North Carolina prepared foods plant. On
March 25, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion for settlement
totaling $425,000, which includes all of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs."

     * Awad, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc., M.D. Tennessee, February 12, 2015 -- "On October 12, 2016,
the parties filed a joint motion for approval of a $725,000
settlement, and plaintiffs filed an application for attorneys'
fees and costs. The court granted its preliminary approval of the
parties' joint motion and the application for attorneys' fees and
costs, on October 21, 2016, and dismissed the action with
prejudice."

Founded in 1935, Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of
the world's largest food companies with brands such as Tyson(R),
Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R),
Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R).  Tyson Foods is a
recognized market leader in chicken, beef and pork as well as
prepared foods, including bacon, breakfast sausage, turkey,
lunchmeat, hot dogs, pizza crusts and toppings, tortillas and
desserts.


TYSON FOODS: Hillshire Brands Awaits Decision in Philippine Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended October 1, 2016, that the Company's subsidiary,
The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly named Sara Lee
Corporation), is awaiting a decision on a pending appeal with
respect to all non-settling complainants in the Philippines.

Hillshire Brands is a party to a consolidation of cases filed by
individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines,
Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The
complaint is filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories
Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the
"respondents"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection
with the termination of manufacturing operations in the
Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The
Hillshire Brands Company.

In 2006, an labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and
awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US$71
million) in damages and fees. The respondents appealed the labor
arbiter's ruling, and it was subsequently set aside by the NLRC in
December 2006. Subsequent to the NLRC's decision, the parties
filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions
for review, certain of which remained outstanding for several
years.

While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were
pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without
admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the
Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange
for payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an
amount not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately US$7.1
million). Based in part on its finding that the consideration to
be paid to the complainants as part of such settlement was
insufficient, the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the
respondents' settlement motion and all motions for reconsideration
thereof. The Supreme Court of the Philippines also set aside as
premature the NLRC's December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases
are now back before the NLRC, which will once again rule on the
respondents' appeals regarding the labor arbiter's 2006 ruling in
favor of the complainants.

In the meantime, the respondents reached a settlement with a group
comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984 complainants,
pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company would pay each
settling complainant PHP68,000 (approximately US$1,402). The
settlement was approved by the NLRC on or around April 8, 2016,
and certain motions for reconsideration relating thereto were
resolved on June 30, 2016. If there are no further appeals or
motions for reconsideration, The Hillshire Brands Company will
make the payments associated with the settlement.

In the meantime, The Hillshire Brands Company awaits the NLRC's
decision on the pending appeal with respect to all non-settling
complainants.

Founded in 1935, Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of
the world's largest food companies with brands such as Tyson(R),
Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R),
Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R).  Tyson Foods is a
recognized market leader in chicken, beef and pork as well as
prepared foods, including bacon, breakfast sausage, turkey,
lunchmeat, hot dogs, pizza crusts and toppings, tortillas and
desserts.


TYSON FOODS: Consolidated Suit Filed in Broiler Chicken Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended October 1, 2016, that in the case, In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs have filed consolidated
amended complaints in each of the two new consolidated actions.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of
itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of
our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry
processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation
of United States antitrust laws. It is further alleged that the
defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiff and the
putative class. The plaintiff and putative class are seeking
treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchaser classes were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
lawsuits brought on behalf of putative classes of indirect
purchasers allege, in addition to violations of federal antitrust
laws, causes of action under various state unfair competition
laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws.

The court has consolidated, for pretrial purposes, each of the
direct purchaser actions into one case and each of the indirect
purchaser actions into one case. These two actions are styled In
re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On October 28, 2016, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints in each of the two new consolidated actions. The
allegations in those complaints are substantially similar to the
allegations set forth.

Founded in 1935, Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of
the world's largest food companies with brands such as Tyson(R),
Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R),
Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R).  Tyson Foods is a
recognized market leader in chicken, beef and pork as well as
prepared foods, including bacon, breakfast sausage, turkey,
lunchmeat, hot dogs, pizza crusts and toppings, tortillas and
desserts.


UBER TECH: Agrees to Pay $20MM Settlement for Misleading Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J . Hawkins at The Verge reports Uber will pay $20 million
to settle a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that it
misled drivers about earnings and vehicle financing, the Wall
Street Journal is reporting. The consumer protection agency
alleged that Uber publicized misleading statements about the
amount of money drivers could earn in 20 cities. For example, Uber
said drivers could earn up to $90,000 a year in New York City and
$74,000 in San Francisco.

As part of the settlement, Uber is not admitting any wrongdoing,
but has agreed to pay $20 million. That sum will be distributed to
drivers affected by the FTC, which did not respond to requests for
comment.

The FTC also claimed that Uber promised to provide drivers with
the best-available financing options to own or lease a car, but
that the rates drivers received were worse than those that could
be obtained by consumers with similar credit scores. In 2015, Uber
ended its relationship with Banco Santander's auto loan division,
which later was accused of issuing subprime loans for vehicle
financing.

"We're pleased to have reached an agreement with the FTC," an Uber
spokesperson said. "We've made many improvements to the driver
experience over the last year and will continue to focus on
ensuring that Uber is the best option for anyone looking to earn
money on their own schedule."

As part of the settlement, Uber agreed to issue semi-regular
compliance reports to the FTC, including marketing material and
driver earning reports, according to court documents.

This isn't the first time Uber has agreed to settle claims
alleging it made misleading statements to drivers and customers.
Last year, Uber agreed to settle two class-action lawsuits for
$28.5 million that allege the ride-hail company improperly
marketed its safety record to passengers by charging them a flat
fee for "safe rides." A few months later, Uber agreed to settle a
class action lawsuit with drivers for $100 million, but that was
later rejected by a judge as an insufficient amount. Last
September, Uber won preliminary approval to settle a claim that it
misled riders about a 20 percent gratuity for drivers.


UBER TECH: UberBLACK Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
S. Laney Griffo, writing for PennRcord, reports that a group of
UberBLACK drivers will be able to continue their class action, a
judge recently ruled in a Philadelphia federal court.

The Uber limousine drivers, who are classified as independent
contractors, are claiming they are not actually independent
contractors and should be properly paid their "on-call" wages.

There are several class actions against Uber around the country
about independent contractor classification, but this is the only
case that brings the on-call wage issue into question.

In the case Razak v. Uber Technologies, the drivers say when they
are on-call, they must log into the Uber App.  The drivers are
claiming that when they are logged in, they should be paid minimum
wage and overtime hours.

"To tell whether the on-call time is payable or not, is whether
they [the employees] are having interference of their personal
pursuits because they are on-call," Richard Reibstein --
reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com -- Partner with Pepper Hamilton, told the
Pennsylvania Record.

In this case, Mr. Reibstein does believe their on-call hours may
be payable.

"The drivers must be properly dressed, in their vehicle and be
able to take calls," Mr. Reibstein said.

Uber lawyers filed a motion to have the case dismissed, claiming
there is no way to tell drivers are actually working just because
they are on-call.

On Dec. 14, Judge Michael Baylson dismissed the motion and is
allowing the case to continue.

In the ruling, Judge Baylson noted that plaintiffs claim
"[d]rivers who refuse a fare are subject to suspension and
termination."

That means, if drivers are not prepared to work at the time they
receive a call, they could lose their job and therefore must
always be prepared when on-call.

Although a ruling has not been made on the claim itself, the
judge's ruling will likely have a significant impact.

There have been few cases of independent contractors using wage
demands to challenge their classification.

"It is a big deal because many plaintiffs' class-action lawyers
have been focused on the Uber cases," Mr. Reibstein said.  "We're
likely to see more of these call-and-pay cases because of the
notability of this case."

Many companies now use a similar business model as Uber, using
independent contractors instead of full-time employees.

"The biggest takeaway for businesses using independent contractors
is to take proactive steps to evaluate their level of independent
contractor compliance," Mr. Reibstein said.  "This is a call for
companies to enhance their independent contractor compliance."


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Kansas AG Joins Coalition Against Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Kansas
Attorney General Derek Schmidt announced Dec. 30 that he has
joined a bipartisan coalition of 14 state attorneys general in
filing a brief in federal court asking for the court to reject a
proposed class action settlement with United Healthcare.

In the class action case, United Healthcare allegedly denied class
members coverage for Harvoni, a treatment for hepatitis C.  The
settlement allows for consumers to receive the continued
opportunity to benefit from changes to Harvoni approval standards
that United Healthcare already implemented in 2016.  The states in
the amicus brief argue that these class action members receive
nothing of particular value while the lawyers reap $3 million.

"Consumers should come first in the class action settlement
process," Mr. Schmidt said.  "In this case, the proposed
settlement is not fair or reasonable and bargains away the claims
of the class members.  As part of our consumer protection role,
our office maintains a watchful eye on proposed class action
settlements that do not actually benefit the consumers they
purport to protect."


The states involves in the amicus brief are Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming.


UNITED KINGDOM: 200 Judges Win Case Over Pension Cuts
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Johnson, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of more
than 200 U.K. judges -- including six high court judges -- have
won a landmark case against the Ministry of Justice over claims of
age, gender and race discrimination following cuts to their
pensions.

A London employment tribunal ruled on Jan. 16 that the MoJ and the
then lord chancellor Liz Truss, now justice secretary,
discriminated against younger judges by requiring them to join a
new, less favorable pension plan in 2015, while allowing older
judges to remain on the existing plan.

The tribunal judge said that the changes, which were also found to
impact disproportionately on women and ethnic minorities, could
not be justified.

The six high court judges were represented by London law firm
Bindmans, and Michael Beloff QC and Ben Jaffey QC of Blackstone
Chambers.  The remaining 204 judges were represented by personal
injury and human rights law firm Leigh Day, and Andrew Short QC
and Naomi Ling of Outer Temple Chambers.

Leigh Day employment lawyer Shubha Banerjee described the ruling
as a "great victory."

The decision could have ramifications for other public sector
employees, such as police officers, teachers, firefighters and
prison officers, who have seen similar changes to their pensions.


UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf Class Action Hearing in London Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Free Malaysia Today reports that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi's class
action suit in a British court was set to be heard on Jan 19,
2017, in London, according to a statement from the NGO.

The case, filed on behalf of descendants of indentured labour in
Malaya (peninsula), was set to be heard at the Court of Appeal at
the Royal Court of Justice, The Strand, at 9 am.

The class action suit was filed by Hindraf chairman P
Waythamoorthy.

Hindraf secretary P Muniandy said in the statement that those
wishing to follow live the court hearing could do so via Hindraf's
Facebook page from 5 pm on Jan 19.

He said Mr. Waythamoorthy was currently in London, with Hindraf
counsel Karthigesan Shanmugam, to brief senior barristers and
solicitors on the case.
Mr. Waythamoorthy filed the appeal to prove that at no time was
the British Queen the Queen of Malaya.

"The decision insulted the dignity of the Malay Rulers who were,
independently, sultans of nine states," said the statement.  "The
sultans were merely receiving advice of the Governor of the
Federation of Malaya by virtue of the Federation of Malaya
Agreement 1948."

Mr. Waythamoorthy, meanwhile, said in a telephone interview that
"we need to set the record straight".

Otherwise, he cautioned, Malaysians would be misled into thinking
that the British Queen was the monarch of pre-independent Malaya.
Elizabeth II had acted as the Queen of the United Kingdom, at all
times, and hence was liable for the neglect shown by her officers
and government towards the Indian community, "enslaved for almost
200 years" in Malaya.

The statement was referring to Justice Nicholas Blake's ruling
previously that the Queen was acting in 1957 as the Queen of
Malaya, and not the Queen of the UK.

Hence, the judge reasoned, Hindraf's class action suit should fail
on that ground alone.

The judge cited additional reasons, including that there was no
duty of care by the UK government towards Indians in Malaya in
1957; even if there was duty of care, the UK government did not
breach those duties; and there was no special relationship between
the UK government and Indians in Malaya to render the UK liable
for the lack of protection afforded in the Constitution given to
Malaya.

The class action suit was heard at the High Court in London on
March 30, 2016 and April 1, 2016.

The High Court struck out the claim on the grounds the claimants
had no real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason
why the case should be disposed of at a trial.

The class action suit seeks reparations and certain declarations
from the British court "for the injustices suffered by the
descendants of indentured labour who were uprooted from their
native India and displaced in Malaya".


UNITED PARCEL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Untaxed Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Delaware judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by United Parcel
Service shareholders over allegations that the company illegally
shipped untaxed cigarettes.

New York authorities sued the Atlanta-based company in federal
court in 2015, claiming it had violated a 2005 agreement regarding
illegal cigarette shipments, mostly from retailers on Native
American reservations.

Shareholders sued UPS directors last year on behalf of the
company, saying they failed to comply with their oversight
responsibilities, leaving UPS potentially liable for hundreds of
millions of dollars in damages and penalties.

In ruling last week, a Chancery Court judge said the plaintiffs
had failed to adequately plead that the defendants consciously
failed to oversee UPS's compliance with its obligations in a
manner that would constitute bad faith or leave them personally
liable.


UNITED STATES: Secret Service Settles Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Department of Homeland
Security and the Secret Service have agreed to settle a class-
action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in promotion
practices by the agency that protects the president.

More than 100 black Secret Service agents alleged in the 2000
lawsuit that they were routinely passed over for promotions in
favor of less-qualified white agents.  Homeland Security Secretary
Jeh Johnson says in a statement released on Jan. 17 that he is
"pleased that we are able to finally put this chapter of Secret
Service history behind us."

The Secret Service says that while it "denies any and all
liability or damages . . . the agreement is a means of resolving
this almost 2-decades-old matter."

The Washington Post is reporting that the agency has agreed to pay
$24 million to the plaintiffs.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Notice of Payment of Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 18, 2016, Virgin America disclosed a Notice
of Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

As Virgin America Inc. (the "Company") previously disclosed, the
Company entered into a stipulation agreement on August 11, 2016
concerning the dismissal of the shareholder class action suit,
captioned Thomas Houston v. Donald J. Carty, et al., Case No.
12235 (Del. Ch.), against the Company's outside directors in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court").

On August 12, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the
action with prejudice as to the plaintiff and without prejudice as
to all other members of the putative class and retaining
jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining the plaintiff's
counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses.

The parties reached an agreement with respect to the payment of
plaintiff's counsel's fees and expenses and on November 14, 2016,
the Court granted the stipulation and ordered the Company to issue
notice to shareholders with respect to the agreed-upon payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

        Notice of Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

       Virgin America/Alaska Air Merger Related Litigation

On April 20 and May 10, 2016, respectively, two shareholders of
Virgin America, Inc. ("Virgin America") filed putative class
action complaints in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo (the "California Actions"). On April
21, 2016, another shareholder of Virgin America filed a putative
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (the "Delaware Action"). The California and Delaware
Actions challenged the proposed acquisition of Virgin America by
Alaska Air Group, Inc. ("Alaska Air") and certain of its
affiliates. The complaints generally alleged that Virgin America's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Virgin America's
stockholders in connection with the proposed acquisition, and the
plaintiffs in the California Actions alleged that Alaska Air and
its affiliates aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches.
The plaintiffs in the California and Delaware Actions subsequently
agreed to coordinate their litigation efforts in the Delaware
Action, and, on July 12, 2016 and August 12, 2016, the California
Superior Court dismissed the California Actions at plaintiffs'
request.

On May 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Delaware Action filed an
amended complaint, which added allegations that Virgin America's
Schedule 14A preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
April 22, 2016 was materially false and misleading. On June 3,
2016, Virgin America made additional disclosures sought by the
plaintiffs by filing Amendment No. 1 to the Schedule 14A with the
SEC.

On August 12, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
Stipulated Order dismissing the Delaware Action as moot with
prejudice as to plaintiff's claims, and without prejudice as to
all other members of the putative class. The Court retained
jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's anticipated mootness fee
application for the benefits that plaintiff claims were provided
to the class by the additional disclosures. In lieu of such
application, the parties subsequently agreed to a payment made
directly by Virgin America or Alaska Air to plaintiff's counsel in
the amount of $250,000 in full satisfaction of any claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Delaware Court of Chancery has
not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the
payment of a fee or its reasonableness.

Please direct all questions, concerns or inquiries to counsel for
the parties:

Counsel for Plaintiff Thomas Houston:

     James R. Banko, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 482-3182
     Fax: (302) 482-3612
     Email: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
     Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 601-2610
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

Counsel for Defendants Donald J. Carty, Samuel J. Skinner, Cyrus
F. Freidheim, Jr., Stephen C. Freidheim, Evan M. Lovell, Robert A.
Nickell, John R. Rapaport, Stacy J. Smith, Jennifer Vogel, and
Paul Wachter:

     Matthew Rawlinson, Esq.
     Hilary H. Mattis, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     140 Scott Drive
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     Tel: (650) 328-4600
     Email: matt.rawlinson@lw.com
     Email: hilary.mattis@lw.com

           - and -

     Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
     Matthew L. Miller, Esq.
     April M. Ferraro, Esq.
     ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel.: (302) 778-1000
     Email: abrams@AbramsBayliss.com


VISA INC: Interchange Fees Multidistrict Litigation Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend
against the multidistrict litigation over interchange
reimbursement fees.

Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of
which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal
district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa
International and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa
member financial institutions. The complaints challenged, among
other things, Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of
interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and
alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees under the federal
antitrust laws, and, in some cases, certain state unfair
competition laws. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial
proceedings in MDL 1720. A group of purported class plaintiffs
subsequently filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint which, together with the complaints brought by
individual merchants, sought money damages alleged to range in the
tens of billions of dollars (subject to trebling), as well as
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The class plaintiffs also
filed a Second Supplemental Class Action Complaint against Visa
Inc. and certain member financial institutions challenging Visa's
reorganization and IPO under the antitrust laws and seeking
unspecified money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief,
including an order that the IPO be unwound.

The Company and certain individual merchants whose claims were
consolidated with the MDL signed a settlement agreement to resolve
their claims against the Company for approximately $350 million.
This payment was made from the U.S. litigation escrow account on
October 29, 2012, and the court has dismissed those claims with
prejudice.

In addition, Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International,
MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated,
various U.S. financial institution defendants, and the class
plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement (the "2012 Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims. The terms of
the 2012 Settlement Agreement include, among other terms, (1) a
comprehensive release of claims asserted in the litigation and
protection against future litigation regarding default interchange
and other U.S. rules; (2) settlement payments from the Company of
approximately $4.0 billion and a further distribution of 10 basis
points of default interchange for an eight-month period; (3)
certain modifications to the Company's rules, including
modifications to permit surcharging on credit transactions under
certain circumstances; and (4) the Company's agreement to meet
with merchant buying groups that seek to collectively negotiate
interchange rates. On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately
$4.0 billion from the U.S. litigation escrow account into a
settlement fund established pursuant to the 2012 Settlement
Agreement.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment order
approving the settlement, from which a number of objectors
appealed. On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the lower court's certification of the
merchant class and reversed the approval of the settlement. The
Second Circuit determined that the class plaintiffs were
inadequately represented, and remanded the case to the lower court
for further proceedings not inconsistent with its decision.

Prior to November 23, 2016, class plaintiffs may file a petition
for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review
of the Second Circuit's decision. Until the appeals process is
complete, it is uncertain whether the Company will be able to
resolve the class plaintiffs' claims as contemplated by the 2012
Settlement Agreement. However, the case is still U.S. covered
litigation for purposes of the U.S. retrospective responsibility
plan.


VISA INC: Plaintiffs in Consumer Interchange Case Seek Rehearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the Consumer
Interchange Litigation have sought rehearing by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On December 16, 2013, a putative class action was filed on behalf
of all Visa and MasterCard payment cardholders in the United
States since January 1, 2000, against certain financial
institutions, identifying non-defendants Visa, MasterCard and
certain other financial institutions as co-conspirators.
Plaintiffs allege primarily a conspiracy to fix interchange fees
and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and treble damages in
excess of $54.0 billion dollars annually arising from purported
overcharges. Originally filed in federal court in California, the
case was transferred to MDL 1720. On November 26, 2014, the MDL
court dismissed plaintiffs' federal law claim and declined to
exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claim. Both sides
asked the court to reconsider aspects of its decision and filed
notices of appeal.

On February 24, 2016, the MDL court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs' federal claim and
dismissed plaintiffs' state law claim based on defendants' cross-
motion for reconsideration.

On October 17, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, and on
October 31, 2016, plaintiffs sought rehearing by the Second
Circuit.


VISA INC: Home Depot Suit Transferred to MDL 1720
-------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has issued an order transferring the lawsuit by The
Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. against Visa Inc.,
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated and
MasterCard International Incorporated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia to MDL 1720.

Beginning in May 2013, more than 50 cases have been filed in
various federal district courts by hundreds of merchants who had
opted out of the damages portion of the 2012 Settlement Agreement,
generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those
raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations
that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or
conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments. In
addition, some of the cases seek an injunction against the setting
of default interchange rates; certain Visa Rules relating to
merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and various
transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee. One
merchant's complaint also asserts that Visa, MasterCard and their
member banks conspired to prevent the adoption of chip-and-PIN
authentication in the U.S. or otherwise circumvent competition in
the debit market, and at least two merchant groups have requested
permission from the MDL court to amend their complaints. The cases
name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International,
MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated,
although some also include certain U.S. financial institutions as
defendants. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries filed a
complaint that also adds Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. as defendants.

Visa, MasterCard, and certain U.S. financial institution
defendants in MDL 1720 filed a complaint in the Eastern District
of New York against certain named class representative plaintiffs
who had opted out or stated their intention to opt out of the
damages portion of the 2012 Settlement Agreement. In addition,
Visa filed three more similar complaints in the Eastern District
of New York against Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; against The Home Depot,
Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A.; and against Sears Holdings
Corporation. All four complaints seek a declaration that, from
January 1, 2004 to November 27, 2012, the time period for which
opt-outs could seek damages under the 2012 Settlement Agreement,
Visa's conduct in, among other things, continuing to set default
interchange rates, maintaining its "honor all cards" rule,
enforcing certain rules relating to merchants, and restructuring
itself, did not violate federal or state antitrust laws.

All the cases filed in federal court have been either assigned to
the judge presiding over MDL 1720, or have been transferred or are
being considered for transfer by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for inclusion in MDL 1720. The court has
entered an order confirming that In re Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 1:05-md-01720-JG-
JO (E.D.N.Y.), includes (1) all current and future actions
transferred to MDL 1720 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation or other order of any court for inclusion in
coordinated or pretrial proceedings, and (2) all actions filed in
the Eastern District of New York that arise out of operative facts
as alleged in the cases subject to the transfer orders of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Cases that have been
transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720 are U.S. covered
litigation for purposes of the U.S. retrospective responsibility
plan.

A settlement agreement was reached with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and
its subsidiaries, which will terminate if, following all appeals,
the 2012 Settlement Agreement in MDL 1720 is reversed or vacated
with respect to certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) settlement
class or the consideration provided to or release provided by that
class. Including this settlement with Wal-Mart, as of the date of
filing, Visa has reached settlement agreements with a number of
merchants representing approximately 51% of the Visa-branded
payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the 2012
Settlement Agreement. Except for the settlement with Wal-Mart,
these settlement agreements remain effective despite the outcome
of any appeals from the district court's order approving the 2012
Settlement Agreement in MDL 1720.

On June 13, 2016, The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
filed suit against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International,
MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
On October 3, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the case to MDL 1720.

While the Company believes that it has substantial defenses in
these matters, the final outcome of individual legal claims is
inherently unpredictable. The Company could incur judgments, enter
into settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome
of individual merchant claims, and such developments could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial results in the
period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably
estimable.


VISA INC: Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan Suits Remain Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the merchant lawsuits in Ontario,
Alberta, and Saskatchewan remain stayed pending further
proceedings in British Columbia.

Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits were
filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Alberta against Visa Canada, MasterCard and ten financial
institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa
and/or MasterCard credit cards. A separate action was filed
against Visa Canada Corporation and Visa Inc., two MasterCard
entities and smaller Canadian issuing banks, but that case has
been stayed. The remaining cases allege a violation of Canada's
price-fixing law and various common law claims based on separate
Visa and MasterCard conspiracies in respect of default interchange
and certain of the networks' rules. Four of the named financial
institutions, only one of which is a significant Canadian issuer,
have now settled with the plaintiffs.

On March 26, 2014, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in one of
the class action suits, Watson v. Bank of America Corporation, et
al., granted the plaintiff's application for class certification
in part. On appeal from both the defendants and the plaintiff, the
British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the class proceedings to
advance but limited the time period of plaintiff's main price-
fixing claim to prior to March 2010. A motion by the plaintiff to
amend its claim to include the post-March 2010 period was
dismissed by the British Columbia Supreme Court and that ruling is
under appeal.

The related lawsuits in Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have
effectively been stayed pending further proceedings in British
Columbia. The timing of the lawsuit in Quebec is also being
considered in light of the proceedings in British Columbia.

The pending lawsuits largely seek unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief, but some allege substantial damages.


VISA INC: Appeal in Data Pass Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal in the Data Pass
Litigation remains pending.

On November 19, 2010, a consumer filed an amended class action
complaint against Webloyalty.com, Inc., Gamestop Corporation, and
Visa Inc. in Connecticut federal district court, seeking damages,
restitution and injunctive relief on the grounds that consumers
who made online purchases at merchants were allegedly deceived
into incurring charges for services from Webloyalty.com through
the unauthorized passing of cardholder account information during
the sales transaction ("data pass"), in violation of federal and
state consumer protection statutes and common law.

On October 15, 2015, the court dismissed the case in its entirety,
without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
November 12, 2015.

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


VISA INC: Appeal in ATM Access Fee Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Supreme Court was
scheduled to hear oral argument on December 7, 2016, in the appeal
related to the U.S. ATM Access Fee Litigation.

National ATM Council Class Action

In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank
ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa
(Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.)
and MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar
MasterCard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge
consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee
cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on
other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and seeks damages "in an amount not presently
known, but which is tens of millions of dollars, prior to
trebling," injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Consumer Class Actions

In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed
against Visa and MasterCard in the same federal court challenging
the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class
actions challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in
October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, MasterCard and
three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where
available under federal and state law, including under Section 1
of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes.
On February 13, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismissed all of these cases without prejudice. On
plaintiffs' appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated the lower court's decisions and remanded
for further proceedings.

On February 18, 2016, the National ATM Council moved for a
preliminary injunction to prohibit Visa and MasterCard from
imposing ATM access fee non-discrimination rules. On June 28,
2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted defendants' petitions for
writ of certiorari seeking review of the decisions of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the
district court issued an order on July 21, 2016, staying the cases
pending that review. The U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear
oral argument in these cases on December 7, 2016.


VISA INC: EMV Chip Liability Shift Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend
against the EMV Chip Liability Shift class action lawsuit.

Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and Grove Liquors LLC
filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against
Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, Discover, American Express,
EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The amended
complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty or otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from defendants to the purported
class of merchants, defined as those merchants throughout the
United States who have been subject to the "Liability Shift" from
October 2015 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that the so-called
"Liability Shift" violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and
certain state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted motions to dismiss the
amended complaint filed by EMVCo and the financial institution
defendants, but denied motions to dismiss filed by Visa Inc., Visa
U.S.A., MasterCard, American Express and Discover.


VISA INC: Request to Appeal in Broadway Grill Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2016, that Visa's request for permission to
appeal related to the Broadway Grill class action lawsuit is
pending.

On July 12, 2016, Broadway Grill, Inc. ("Broadway Grill"), on
behalf of itself and a putative class of California merchants that
have accepted Visa-branded cards since January 1, 2004, filed a
lawsuit against Visa Inc., Visa International and Visa U.S.A. in
California state court. Based on allegations similar to those
advanced by plaintiffs in MDL 1720, Broadway Grill pursues claims
under California state antitrust and unfair business statutes.
Broadway Grill seeks damages, costs and other remedies.

On July 18, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. On September 27, 2016,
the district court granted leave to amend the complaint and
entered an order remanding the case to California state court.
Thereafter, Broadway Grill amended its complaint and Visa sought
permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
appeal the district court's decision. On October 17, 2016, the
district court ordered the case remanded to California state
court, and Visa's request for permission to appeal is pending.


VOLKSWAGEN: In-House Lawyers Face Obstruction of Justice Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the obstruction of justice charge filed against Volkswagen AG on
Jan. 11 pertains not only to lies by employees to federal
regulators, but also to actions by VW's in-house legal team,
according to statements attached to the plea agreement.

The statements say VW in-house attorneys tipped off employees
about an oncoming litigation hold.  And at least one in-house
counsel apparently indicated to employees that they should destroy
certain documents and a hard drive that pertained to VW's
emissions cheating issues.

As part of the plea deal, VW agreed to cooperate with the U.S.
Department of Justice in further prosecuting individuals guilty of
misconduct, including those involved in perjury and obstruction of
justice.

Six current and former employees -- one top compliance officer and
five department heads in product development and engineering --
already were indicted on Jan. 11.  One in-house counsel, referred
to simply as "Attorney A," was implicated as an unindicted co-
conspirator.

U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade in Detroit, where the plea deal and
indictments were filed in U.S. district court, told Automotive
News that unindicted co-conspirators remain under investigation.
Ms. McQuade also told Automotive News that three of the six
indicted employees remain employed at VW, including the former
compliance chief, Oliver Schmidt, who is in police custody after
being arrested while on vacation in Miami.  The company declined
to discuss individual employees.

But, based on the statement of facts in the plea deal under the
section titled "Obstruction of Justice," this much is known about
the in-house legal role: In the summer of 2015 in-house counsel
for VW Group of America Inc. (GOA) contacted VW AG in Wolfsburg,
Germany, to alert them that lawyers were preparing a litigation
hold related to the emissions issues.

On Aug. 26, 2015, "GOA's legal team sent the text of a [not yet
issued] litigation hold notice to Attorney A in VW AG's Wolfsburg
office," the statement says.

The next day, Attorney A met with several VW engineers to discuss
the illegal emissions defeat device at the heart of the scandal,
the document says.  "Attorney A indicated that a hold was
imminent, and that these engineers should check their documents,
which multiple participants understood to mean that they should
delete documents prior to the hold being issued," it states.

The GOA lawyers actually issued the litigation hold a day later,
on Aug. 28.  But Attorney A told his staff on Aug. 31 that the
hold would be delayed at VW AG until the next day, Sept. 1.
Meanwhile, on Aug. 31, Attorney A again attended a meeting of
various supervisors and employees, and again said they should
"check" their documents before the hold was issued in the German
offices.  "The comment led multiple individuals, including
supervisors, to delete documents related to U.S. emissions
issues," it says.

At least two employees at VW AG contacted employees at "Company
A," identified only as a Berlin software company that works with
VW, and asked that company to delete related emissions documents,
according to the statement.

At a meeting on Sept. 15, Attorney A met with about 30 to 40
employees and indicated that emissions-related data should be kept
on USB drives and put on the company's computer system "only if
necessary."

Thousands of documents were deleted, but many were later recovered
during the investigation, it adds.

The entire cover-up finally fell apart in November 2015 when a VW
employee admitted it to regulators.

In February 2016, GOA general counsel David Geanacopoulos was
moved into the new position of senior executive vice president for
public affairs and public policy in Washington, D.C., after eight
years as GC.  As a member of the company's board of directors, he
continued to work on resolving the emissions investigation and "to
help us rebuild the trust we have lost," the company said.

Mr. Geanacopoulos was replaced as GC by David Detweiler, a U.S.
citizen who was working with Clifford Chance in Frankfurt,
Germany, at the time.

Now Mr. Detweiler and his legal team must deal with the results of
the misconduct.  That includes an independent monitor imposed on
the company covering both the headquarters in Germany and the U.S.
offices.

An attachment to the plea deal spends 13 pages outlining the
duties of the monitor for the next three years, along with
obligations of the company to the monitor, and other details.
In a similar but unrelated case, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is in
the crosshairs.  Prosecutors on Jan. 12 notified Fiat Chrysler of
alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for installing and failing
to disclose emissions software that allows excess pollution.

In a statement Fiat Chrysler said it "believes that its emission
control systems meets the applicable requirements."  The company
said it will work with the incoming Trump administration to
resolve the matter fairly and equitably.

Hopefully its legal team can take steps to avoid a litigation hold
fiasco like Volkswagen's.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches $4.3BB Emissions Settlement Deal with DOJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Germany's Volkswagen Group said on Jan. 10 it has negotiated a
"concrete draft" of a criminal settlement worth $4.3 billion with
U.S. prosecutors over its emissions cheating scandal.

The draft deal includes a company guilty plea and a statement of
facts that could be used to pursue individual VW executives.
It also contains compliance reforms and the appointment of an
independent monitor, according to a company statement released by
Jeannine Ginivan, senior manager for corporate and internal
communications at Volkswagen Group America Inc. in Herndon,
Virginia.  The statement was signed by two communications
executives in Germany.

The deal is still in the "draft" stage because it has to be
approved by various corporate boards.  The company said the
approval could come on Jan. 10 or Jan. 11.  It also will require
the approval of a federal court.

"The payment obligations are expected to lead to a financial
expense that exceeds the current provisions," the statement says.
"The concrete impact regarding the annual result [for] 2016 cannot
be defined at present."

The amount includes both criminal and civil penalties.
Analysts welcomed the proposed settlement before President-elect
Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20, according to a story in the
Automotive News.

"There is apprehension in the market that Trump may become an
unpredictable president and turn against non-U.S. companies," the
report quoted analyst Juergen Pieper of Bankhaus Metzler.  "The
deal is not cheap but it gives clarity to investors and relief to
VW."

Volkswagen has said it will also spend millions of dollars on
settling civil suits by vehicle owners and dealerships.
The proposed settlement comes a day after Oliver Schmidt, VW's top
compliance officer, appeared in U.S. District Court in Miami after
he was arrested for allegedly taking part in a conspiracy to
defraud the U.S., committing wire fraud, and violating the U.S.
Clean Air Act.  He was the second VW executive to face criminal
charges in the emissions scandal.

A criminal complaint against Ms. Schmidt, unsealed in U.S.
District Court in Detroit on Jan. 16, presents a road map for
possible prosecution of other executives.  It says Schmidt
informed other VW management members in Germany of the illegal
emissions scheme in meetings in the summer of 2015, and they
directed him to continue lying to regulators about it.

The complaint does not name the other members of management
involved.  The Department of Justice has declined to comment on
its investigation and the proposed settlement.

                           *     *     *

A CNBC.com report at https://is.gd/RQZVdL says the Volkswagen
board has approved $4.3 billion US criminal civil settlement.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Approves $1.6BB Settlement with 644 Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on Jan. 23 granted final approval for a $1.67
billion settlement for hundreds of Volkswagen-branded franchise
dealers following the automaker's Dieselgate scandal that
blindsided dealers, according to Hagens Berman.

The settlement brings $1.67 billion in benefits to Volkswagen
dealers, including nearly $1.2 billion in new cash, $270 million
through a non-offset provision for prior payments and $175 million
in continued sales incentives. The settlement garnered nearly
unanimous approval of dealers, with 99 percent participation in
the settlement. Participating dealers will receive an average
settlement payout of $1.85 million.

"The Volkswagen-branded franchise dealer class-action settlement
finalized today represents an outstanding result for Volkswagen's
affected franchise dealers who, like consumers, were blindsided by
the brazen fraud that VW perpetrated," said Steve Berman, managing
partner of Hagens Berman and the lead attorney representing the
class. "We are pleased to have been able to reach a swift
resolution to allow these small business owners to get back to
business and offset the tremendous hit to franchise value, revenue
and profits suffered due to VW's Dieselgate scandal."

The order, granted by Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, states that
franchise dealers will share just under $1.2 billion in payments
intended as compensation for the alleged diminution in the value
of their franchises. The court approved allocation of the cash
payments based upon the formula that Volkswagen used to provide
its monthly support payments to franchise dealers, specifically,
the monthly support payments that began in November of 2015, and
pursuant to the settlement, continued through December 2016.

Hagens Berman has established a dedicated email, toll-free number
and website to answer dealers' questions about the proposed
settlement. Dealers are invited to contact Hagens Berman's legal
team:

vwdealers@hbsslaw.com
1-800-657-1758
www.vwdealersettlement.com

Half of the settlement payment will be made up front, and the
remaining 50 percent will be paid in 18 equal, consecutive monthly
installments beginning the month following the initial payment.
Approximately 85 percent of Volkswagen's dealers have already
executed Individual Release forms that have allowed VW to pay the
initial payments in December 2016 and January 2017. Franchise
dealers who chose not to complete the individual release will
receive their initial payments within 30 days of the effective
date of the settlement.

In addition to the cash compensation and continued incentives, the
Settlement limits VW's ability to require its dealers to make
costly capital improvements for two years and establishes
parameters to resolve dealer inventory issues with the diesel cars
that have been stuck on dealers' lots since the emission scandal
when Volkswagen issued broad stop-sale orders covering diesel
powered cars.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm has been named to the
National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times.

              Vehicle Owners Await Settlement Payout

Lauren Sweeney, writing for WINK News, reports that that some
Volkswagen owners are still waiting for the company to come up
with an approved fix for their vehicles so they can collect from a
massive class-action settlement.

As part of a nearly $15 billion settlement agreement, Volkswagen
agreed to modify thousands of owners' vehicles to bring them up to
current emissions standards.

Federal prosecutors charged six Volkswagen executives for their
role in an emissions cheating scandal, and the company pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of the
clean air act.

Approximately 475,000 vehicles are considered eligible for a
buyback settlement, a lease termination or a cash settlement
following a free modification.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved an emissions fix for
some 2015 model vehicles with the California Air Resources Board.
But the company and the government have not indicated how long
fixes for other vehicles may take for approval.

"I'm being told it could take as long as a year," said
Tricia Reynolds, a Fort Myers woman who owns a 2012 Jetta diesel.

Ms. Reynolds chose the cash payout option of the settlement since
she doesn't want to drive another car.  She's supposed to be paid
out $6,300 after her vehicle is fixed, she said, because she is
under a 12,000 mile per year threshold.

Now she's worried the longer the company takes to find an approved
fix, the more miles she will put on her car and decrease her
potential settlement.

The company's deadline for submitting an approved fix to the EPA
and the resources board for vehicles with first-generation engines
like Reynolds' is Jan. 27, according Volkswagen's website
dedicated to the diesel scandal.

The company would not comment on whether or not it will meet that
deadline.  A spokesperson wrote via email that Volkswagen is
working to submit the modifications as quickly as possible.

"Some people who have taken that third option are experiencing
some problems, just because we do not know when the EPA is going
to approve the fix," said Sawyer Smith, a Fort Myers attorney
whose firm represented plaintiffs in the class action suit.

Mr. Smith believes the case was resolved very quickly and to the
benefit of the consumer.

"Unfortunately, those who took that third option are just going to
have to tough it out and wait," he said.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Germany Needs to Have Collective Rights Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Volker Votsmeier, writing for Handelsblatt Global, reports that it
is absurd: So far, the Volkswagen concern has had to cough up
around $22 billion (EUR20.75 billion) in compensation to customers
and authorities in the United States for its diesel fraud.  This
enormous sum comprises damage payments, penalties and legal costs.
The number of affected cars in the United States is 585,000.

In Europe Volkswagen potentially has a problem 17 times bigger:
The company sold 8.5 million vehicles here with the now-suspect
diesel technology.  But the sum Volkswagen has had to stump up for
its transgressions in Europe is infinitely lower: zero.

The facts are completely at odds with any sense of justice.  In
the United States, the carmaker pleaded guilty to deceiving
supervisory authorities and customers, whereas in Europe it denies
all such accusations.  VW may even succeed with this plea.  The
law in Germany and other European countries makes such
stonewalling possible.  Consumers haven't yet been able to demand
damages.

Through the back door, U.S. law specialists are being increasingly
successful in assembling large numbers of plaintiffs and bringing
pressure to bear on possible infringing parties.
There are two reasons for this: On the one hand, the customer has
to hope that the courts regard the manipulation software as a
serious defect.  That is not certain, as there are differing
signals in terms of jurisprudence.

On the other hand, every individual VW customer has to pursue his
own arduous path to justice because in Germany, there's no such
thing as a class-action suit like in the United States. Damaged
parties have no way of exerting pressure on Volkswagen.

U.S. law firms in particular are exploiting this gap in German
law.  Possible cases of fraud at the expense of consumers,
investors or firms are attracting increasing numbers of litigation
firms from abroad.  These specialists search systematically in
Germany for potential class-action suits, which are actually not
possible here, unlike in the United States.  But through the back
door, they are being increasingly successful in assembling large
numbers of plaintiffs and bringing pressure to bear on possible
infringing parties.

The U.S. law firm Hausfeld, in particular, hit the headlines
recently.  It is attacking carmakers like VW because of the diesel
scandal, or automotive supplier firms like Bosch, not to mention
truck cartel members Daimler, Volvo, Iveco and DAF.  Recently it
has focused on the banking industry for possibly charging
excessive EC bank card fees.

Germany needs a law pertaining to collective rights, but it should
not become an El Dorado for U.S. law firms.

The lawyers are applying their tried and tested U.S. success
formula in Europe too: The first step is to acquire huge numbers
of clients via internet platforms like Myright and generate
widespread publicity.  Potential damages are provisionally
estimated at exorbitant levels.  That creates headlines and gets
the attention of politicians.  Being on the side of damaged
parties makes the lawyers popular.  This helps them to exert
maximum pressure on the firms concerned.

There are already calls to introduce U.S.-style class actions in
Germany.  But that would be wrong, because things have got out of
hand in America.  A whole plaintiff industry has been established
in which the interests of clients have become less and less
important.  What comes first and foremost is the law firms' own
business.

The U.S. law has all the instruments of torture available to
plaintiffs and their lawyers at the ready, but under no
circumstances should Germany import them.  For example, companies
in the United States are threatened with high damages, and amounts
are determined by juries of laymen and can hardly be calculated.

Legal fees are not reimbursed even if it transpires that a claim
is unjustified.  The usual payments made to plaintiff lawyers in
the United States are frequently out of all proportion.  Success-
based fees usually amount to a third of the damages secured.  In
the case of VW, the law firms involved literally pocketed
billions.  A large proportion of awarded damages go not to damaged
parties, but to their lawyers.

However, it is also important in Germany to strengthen consumers'
rights which is why Minister of Justice Heiko Maas of the center-
left Social Democratic Party (SPD) has introduced a draft bill for
class actions brought by consumers.  So far it has only been
possible for investors to get together and represent their
interests in court.  This right should also be accorded to
customers mounting a collective defense against fraudulent firms.
The judicial system -- itself under great pressure -- would also
benefit if such actions could be bundled and streamlined.

But there have to be improvements and so far it has been
associations such as consumer protection organizations which have
had to take the initiative.  Individuals affected can also join a
case but cannot initiate it.  There is no logical reason for this,
and the next government should make it a priority to amend this.
Germany needs a law pertaining to collective rights, but it should
not become an El Dorado for U.S. law firms.


WAL-MART STORES: Still Defends Pontiac General Employees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the securities class action, City of Pontiac
General Employees Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
USDC, Western Dist. of AR, 5/7/12.

The Company is a defendant in several lawsuits in which the
complaints closely track the allegations set forth in a news story
that appeared in The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21,
2012. One of these is a securities lawsuit that was filed on May
7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, and subsequently transferred to the Western
District of Arkansas, in which the plaintiff alleges various
violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA")
beginning in 2005, and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating
to certain prior disclosures of the Company. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
stock of the Company between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012,
and seeks damages and other relief based on allegations that the
defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock.

On September 20, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification. On October 6, 2016, the defendants filed a
petition to appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On November 7, 2016, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the Company's
petition.


WAL-MART STORES: Sold Wildfire-Contaminated Food, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Thurton, writing for CBC News, reports that a law firm is
testing the waters to see if there's interest among Fort McMurray
residents who may have bought wildfire-contaminated food from the
downtown Walmart.

Calgary-based Higgerty Law announced on Jan. 14 on its website
that it may launch a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Fort
McMurray customers who have purchased contaminated food in the
weeks after the wildfire. The law firm is asking people impacted
to complete an online questionnaire.

"Whether you have symptoms or not, many of the contaminants are
carcinogenic," the post reads.  "So even though they won't affect
you immediately they could put you at higher risk of cancer later,
if taken over a course of time."

Walmart Canada and four of its senior managers face 174 charges
under the Alberta Public Health Act related to the sale of food
contaminated during the wildfire, which engulfed the city last
May.

A 31-page charge sheet alleges the store sold various contaminated
food items, ranging from chocolate bars to bacon and chicken.

The charges also allege that Walmart Canada failed to ensure that
food that had been contaminated or was unfit for human consumption
in the wake of the wildfire was not stocked or sold at its
location in downtown Fort McMurray.

Four additional charges allege that Walmart lied to public health
inspectors by saying it was not selling food that had been
contaminated in the fire.

Before residents were allowed to re-enter the city after the
wildfire, health officials repeatedly advised residents and
businesses to throw out any food products not stored safely in
cans and tins.

Higgerty Law's general counsel, Clint Docken, said a handful of
customers have already contacted the law firm.

"We have talked to people that have suffered some health issues,"
Mr. Docken said in an interview.  "Which they are blaming on
groceries that they purchased in Walmart."

Alex Robertson, Walmart Canada's senior director of corporate
affairs, reiterated a statement the company issued on Jan. 13.

"We, at all material times, and during an unprecedented crisis,
worked very closely with both food inspectors and the crisis
management team of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo to
re-open the store as soon as reasonably possible in an effort to
support and meet the critical needs of the community" he said.

Walmart said the company follows strict procedures to ensure
customer safety.


WELLS FARGO: Saxena White Named Co-Lead Counsel in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein and Boca Raton-based Saxena White have been
selected to lead a shareholder derivative class action against
Wells Fargo & Co., winning out over competing firms that have
clients with hundreds of thousands of more shares in the bank.

The suits stem from revelations last September that Wells Fargo
employees had been pressured to open more than 2 million
unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts on behalf of bank
customers and the subsequent blow to the company's stock and
finances.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California ruled that Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White were best
positioned to lead the derivative litigation against the company's
board, in part because they moved quickly to coordinate the
various suits that had been filed.

The firms "played a key role in the effort to consolidate these
cases pursuant to stipulation, which made the outset of this
litigation more efficient for both the parties and this court,"
Judge Tigar wrote in an order approving their motion to become co-
lead counsel.

He noted four other plaintiffs supported their bid to lead the
case based on "their stated willingness to coordinate and work
with plaintiffs' counsel in the related actions."

Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White respectively represent the Fire
and Police Pension Association of Colorado and the City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System.  Together, they hold
181,076 shares in Wells Fargo stock, according to Judge Tigar's
order.  That compares to the 925,169 shares held by the clients of
competing firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Bottini
& Bottini.

Having a bigger financial stake normally puts a firm on solid
footing to lead shareholder class action suits. But the judge
ruled that both pairs of clients still have a "significant"
financial interest and, "This factor will translate into a
marginal difference, if any, in the vigor of representation."
The development comes just two weeks after Judge Tigar appointed
Motley Rice to lead a securities fraud class action against Wells
Fargo, with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as liaison counsel. Their
bid to lead the suit was unopposed.

The Birmingham complaint filed Oct. 12 by the 13-attorney Saxena
White charges the directors and officers of Wells Fargo with
violations of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.

Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White asked to consolidate their cases
and for the appointment of co-lead counsel Nov. 22.

Saxena White was founded in 2006 by Maya Saxena and Joseph White,
who left class action firms to form the only certified minority-
and female-owned firm in securities litigation, representing large
pension funds in major securities fraud cases nationally and
recovering over $2 billion for investors.  They had no comment on
the firm's selection by deadline.

The firm's litigation history includes roles in the Lehman
Brothers Holding collapse, LIBOR rate manipulation allegations and
claims against Novo Nordisk of insulin drug price manipulation.

A separate shareholder derivative class action against Wells Fargo
is also pending in state court in San Francisco, headed by
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy. Cotchett attorneys are due to report to
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow later this month
on whether the federal or state court action should take the lead.

Defending Wells Fargo in the derivative cases is Sullivan &
Cromwell, one of a broad network of law firms the bank has called
on to navigate the legal fallout from the fake accounts scandal.


WESTERN REFINING: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 18 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
Western District of Texas, case no. 3:17-cv-00002, on behalf of
shareholders of Western Refining, Inc. ("Western " or the
"Company")(NYSE: WNR) who held Western securities and have been
harmed by Western and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
sale of the Company to Tesoro Corporation ("Tesoro").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Western
stockholders will receive

$37.30 per share of Western stock (the "Merger Consideration").
Western shareholders will have the option to either receive 0.4350
shares of Tesoro or cash for each share of Western stock.  The
complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and alleges that
the Registration Statement in Form S-4 (the "Proxy") provides
materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of Sections
14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 18, 2017.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations.  It is free and there is no
cost or obligation to you.

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

Contact:

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


WESTERN REFINING: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
Western District of Texas, case no. 3:17-cv-00002, on behalf of
shareholders of Western Refining, Inc. ho held Western securities
and have been harmed by Western and its board of directors' (the
"Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with the sale of the Company to Tesoro Corporation ("Tesoro").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Western
stockholders will receive $37.30 per share of Western stock (the
"Merger Consideration"). Western shareholders will have the option
to either receive 0.4350 shares of Tesoro or cash for each share
of Western stock.  The complaint alleges that this offer is
inadequate and alleges that the Registration Statement in Form S-4
(the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in
violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today.  Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact: www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations.  It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

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

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


WESTERN UNION: Settles FTC Fraud Case for $586 Million
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Western Union has agreed to pay
$586 million to the U.S. government to pay back victims of fraud
that the money transfer company failed to protect.

The government said on Jan. 19 that Western Union did not have a
strong enough anti-fraud program, allowing scammers to use its
money-transfer services to rip off customers.

In one such scam, fraudsters would contact people to trick them
into thinking they won a foreign lottery and asked them to send
money through Western Union to retrieve their prize.

The Federal Trade Commission said in a complaint that Western
Union received more than 550,000 complaints between 2004 and 2015
about scam-related money transfers that totaled more than $630
million.  The FTC said it believes even more people were
victimized, since many may not complain directly to Western Union.

As part of the agreement reached with the FTC and the Department
of Justice, Western Union also agreed to put in place and maintain
an anti-fraud program and properly train its staff to identify
potential fraud.

Western Union said in a statement that much of the activity in the
government's complaint occurred between 2004 and 2012, and that it
has increased spending on anti-fraud measures in the past five
years.

"We are committed to enhancing our compliance programs to prevent
illicit activity on our network and protect customers who transfer
money," Western Union said in a statement.


YELP INC: Law Curbs Consumers' Ability to Leave Negative Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that a handful of companies have gone after customers that left
negative online reviews, prompting a new federal law that protects
the right to complain on such forums as Yelp.com.  With the law's
impacts soon to be felt, in-house counsel would be wise to review
their company's terms of use and make sure they aren't trying to
silence peeved customers, internet lawyers say.

The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016, signed into law by
President Barack Obama on Dec. 14, voids provisions in form
contracts that aim to prohibit or restrict a consumer's ability to
leave a negative review.  While a number of exceptions are
included to allow businesses to take action for such things as
defamatory or vulgar reviews, the CRFA makes it unlawful to
include so-called gag clauses in contracts with consumers and
authorizes the Federal Trade Commission, and in some cases, state
attorneys general, to bring enforcement actions.  The law makes it
unlawful to offer contracts with these clauses 90 days after
enactment, in mid-March, and the enforcement provisions are
effective one year after enactment, in December.

The law was enacted in response to a number of news stories about
businesses going to battle with customers over bad reviews.  One
pet-sitting company in Texas, for example, sued a couple for up to
$1 million in damages related to a one-star Yelp review, claiming
a nondisparagement clause, or gag clause, prevented such a review.

Aaron Schur, senior director of litigation at Yelp Inc. and a
vocal supporter of CRFA, says companies need to make sure they are
in compliance with the new law.  "Businesses should take the time
now to review any form contracts they use with consumers, and
remove any clauses that restrict a consumer's ability to provide
reviews or other feedback about their experiences," he says.

In practice, this should not be a huge undertaking, says
Jim Rosenfeld -- jamesrosenfeld@dwt.com -- a partner in Davis
Wright Tremaine's New York City office and co-chairman of the
firm's media law practice.  "It's a pretty simple change," he
says.  "It's just a matter of making a change to the terms and
conditions."

It's unclear how many companies use these sorts of gag clauses.
Rosenfeld says he doesn't have the impression that a "ton of
businesses" are utilizing them.

But Brad Young, assistant general counsel at TripAdvisor Inc.,
says there are likely many gag clauses that are going unnoticed
and unreported.  "Because of the nature of these clauses and their
entire intention, I commonly refer to it as an iceberg problem,"
he says.  "We get lots of reports about these clauses, but we kind
of assume that we're only seeing 10 percent of the iceberg."

Mr. Schur says the law's enactment will go a long way toward
helping customers speak honestly online.  While businesses that
sue customers over one-star reviews are unlikely to win in court,
just the fear of such retaliation can impact a consumer's
behavior, Mr. Schur says.  "These clauses could have the side
effect where consumers remove reviews," he explains. "Having them
outlawed altogether is beneficial to having consumers feel they
can leave honest reviews."

TripAdvisor, which offers user-generated reviews of hosts,
restaurants and tourist attractions, has long taken the stance
that gag clauses are an unfair business practice.  Now that they
are illegal under federal law, TripAdvisor is upping its pressure
on businesses to remove them.  "I have already reached out to
businesses in the hospitality industry to tell them that the
clauses that I was hearing about in their contracts are now
illegal under federal law," says Young.  "We're making them aware
of the law and telling them that those provisions not only violate
TripAdvisor policy but also now violate the law and they should
govern themselves accordingly."

At Yelp, the law will similarly add teeth to what the company has
already been doing to put an end to these clauses, Mr. Schur says.
The company will continue to notify consumers about businesses
using gag clauses, he explains.  But armed with the federal law,
Mr. Schur adds that they will also now "educate consumers about
the illegality of contractual provisions like these and bring
businesses that still use these provisions to the attention of
state and federal regulators."


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Yet in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15,
2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the court
has held in abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline
for the filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for
trial in a class action lawsuit.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions ("Symbol").
A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the
New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April
26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel
on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages.

By orders entered on June 25 and August 3, 2015, the court granted
lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a
class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol
common stock between April 29, 2003 and August 1, 2005. The
parties have substantially completed fact and expert discovery.
However, by order entered on January 8, 2016, the court granted
Symbol's request for certain additional fact and expert discovery;
pursuant to a proposed scheduling order filed on January 21, 2016,
the parties agreed to complete that discovery by approximately
June 17, 2016.

There are also certain discovery motions pending that could, if
granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in abeyance all
other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of
dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial.

The Company said, "One of the insurers in our insurance group has
denied insurance coverage and is not agreeing to reimburse defense
costs incurred by the Company in connection with this matter. The
Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies
related to legal matters when the loss is both probable and
estimable. In addition, for some matters for which a loss is
probable or reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss
or range of loss is not possible, and we may be unable to estimate
the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result
from the application of non-monetary remedies. Currently, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of reasonably
possible losses for this matter."


ZEEKREWARDS: Ponzi Scheme Victims to Receive Third Payout
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
certain victims of the ZeekRewards.com Ponzi scheme will receive a
third distribution payment in mid-March, the receiver for the
defunct companies said on Jan. 16.

Kenneth Bell said in November there was $42.2 million in reserves
for 38,587 victims who had not completed the necessary release
form and tax documentation for their claims.  Those victims had
until Dec. 31 to finish the process or forfeit their payment.

"Their failure to (provide the proper certification) has permitted
me to release these reserves," Mr. Bell said.

The deadline for filing a claim was in 2013.  Mr. Bell has sent
restitution checks on more than 100,000 qualified claims.

When the next distribution is made by March 15, Mr. Bell said the
majority of victims will have received reimbursement of between 60
percent to 75 percent of their losses.  Victims who already have
received back at least 75 percent of their losses may not qualify
for the third distribution.

"I am confident that we will make a further distribution in the
future," Mr. Bell said.

In August 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Rex
Venture Group LLC (RVG), Zeekler, ZeekRewards and founder Paul
Burks of raising more than $800 million through unregistered
securities, also known as penny auctions, and another $96 million
in subscription fees.

The Lexington companies raised the money from at least 2.2 million
customers, including more than 230,000 in the United States, with
47,000 of those in North Carolina.

In 2016, federal prosecutors raised the amount to $939 million
before Mr. Burks' criminal trial, calling it one of the largest
Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

On July 21, Mr. Burks was found guilty of wire and mail-fraud
conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and tax-fraud conspiracy.

As of Sept. 30, Mr. Bell has recovered $362 million and disbursed
$269.8 million to victims.  Another $17 million could be dispersed
to about 18,000 victims who live outside the United States.

In February 2015, Mr. Bell gained court permission to certify
about 9,400 "net winners" as defendants in a class-action lawsuit.
Bell has defined net winners as those who had a net gain of at
least $1,000. The amounts include interest owed by each
individual.

The overall net winner list contained 15 individuals from Forsyth
County, 105 from the Triad and Northwest North Carolina, and 390
statewide.

Mr. Bell has cautioned that although there are more than $200
million in judgments that could be awarded, "the actual amount
recovered by the receivership is likely to be substantially
lower."

A federal judge has approved multi-million dollar penalties
against eight top net winners for a combined total of at least $17
million.


* Alston & Bird Features Key Decisions in Class Action Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Akerman, Esq. -- alex.akerman@alston.com -- David Carpenter,
Esq. -- david.carpenter@alston.com -- Caitlin Counts, Esq. --
caitlin.counts@alston.com -- Cari Dawson, Esq. --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- Nicole DeMoss, Esq. --
nicole.demoss@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an article for
JDSupra Business Advisor, report that in this edition of Class
Action Roundup, the law firm features decisions from the third
quarter of 2016, covering everything from pizza delivery and Uber
drivers to payday lenders, canned tuna manufacturers, and even
flushable toilet wipes.  The courts continue to take a close look
at class certification and how plaintiffs are defining the class
as well as the analysis of numerosity and predominance. The courts
have also weighed in on issues of class action waivers and
arbitration agreements, deciding on the timing of agreements and
whether the class of plaintiffs is covered by a waiver or not.

The employment arena continues to be fraught with class action
cases covering overtime rules, pay for meal breaks, and
definitions of contractor or employee status.  Court cases already
filed over the DOL's new overtime rule likely means we'll witness
more litigation on that topic into 2017.  Matters involving data
breaches and other privacy issues are again featured in this
issue, with cases dealing with how much private information is
"private" to warrant harm and the nuances of TCPA rules in play
for health care providers.

This issue wraps up with a standard summary of settlements,
including cases dealing with settlement funds and coupons.

The full publication is available at https://is.gd/OylGLk


* Consumer Action Maintains Class Action Database
-------------------------------------------------
Laura Ararat, writing for WLTX, reports that companies accused of
inconveniencing, misleading, or injuring their customers can face
a class action lawsuit but many consumers don't know that they are
owed money.

Consumer Action is a nonprofit organization that has been
representing consumers nationwide since 1971.

They have a Class Action database which maintains a listening of
notable class actions so that consumers can learn more, join a
pending action or make a claim.

To see the database and see if you're owned money, you can visit
their website at:

http://www.consumer-action.org/lawsuits/by-status/pending

Every settlement has a deadline and filing a claim for thing
you've never purchased is considered fraud.

Companies often settle these suits without admitting wrong doing.


* Fiduciary Rule May Spur Class Actions Against Financial Advisors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heimer, writing for Fortune, reports that big banks and
brokerages have been publicly fretting about how a new rule on
retirement accounts might reduce their income.  But at least one
observer thinks they should be more worried about how it might
jack up their legal fees.

The threat in question is the so-called fiduciary rule, a
regulation approved by the Department of Labor last year and
scheduled to go into effect this April.  The rule applies to
retirement accounts, and it states that when working with
investors, "The Financial Institution and the Adviser(s) [must]
provide investment advice that is, at the time of the
recommendation, in the Best Interest of the Retirement Investor."
That concept may sound astoundingly obvious, but it's meant to
address a significant problem in the retirement-savings world.
Currently, many relationships between investment pros and
retirement clients are required only to meet a "suitability"
standard.  In practice, under that rule brokers can and do park
clients in investments that are either absurdly expensive--often
because they generate chunky commissions for the broker--or highly
risky, or both.

The fiduciary rule basically puts pressure on financial-services
companies to justify the costs of the retirement accounts they
offer.  And as Fortune contributor Joshua Brown pointed out when
the rule was passed, many big firms are already moving in that
direction.  They've seen the writing on the wall, as more
investors have moved their nest eggs into low-priced index funds.
They've also seen courts side with workers who sued their
employers for offering overpriced mutual funds in their 401(k)s.
They don't want to be the mustache-twirling villains charging 6%
commissions and 2% annual fees on IRAs when index giants like
Vanguard and BlackRock have proven you can get similar returns for
fractions of a penny on the dollar.

But Michael Kitces, a financial planner who writes extensively
about retirement investing, thinks financial services firms are
focusing on one problem when it really faces two.  In a post on
Jan. 16 on his Nerd's Eye View blog, Mr. Kitces argues that the
idea of fiduciary duty implicitly holds financial advisors to a
minimum standard of competency -- and that, disturbingly, many
firms wouldn't be able to prove that their staff met that
standard.  There are various designations that advisers can earn
that require them to prove that they're competent at helping
clients solve financial problems. (Mr. Kitces holds many of those
designations, as it happens.) But many "client-facing" advisers
aren't required to earn those credentials.

The fiduciary rule would essentially enable a group of disgruntled
retirement-savings clients to use this flaw as a key argument in a
class-action lawsuit.  As Mr. Kitces puts it (emphasis his):
"Financial institutions face the risk that they will be sued in a
class action lawsuit for failing to put their financial advisors
through the training and education (e.g., professional
designations) necessary to ensure that the advisor would even know
what the 'best' advice for the client was in the first place!"
If courts were sympathetic to that argument, he concludes, things
could get uncomfortable, and expensive, very quickly.

Granted, Mr. Kitces's point could quickly become moot under a
Donald Trump administration.  Trump's advisers and cabinet picks,
including Secretary of Labor nominee Andy Puzder, have generally
been outspoken about their desire to roll back financial
regulations. Earlier this month, Rep. Joe Wilson (R, S.C.)
introduced a bill to delay the implementation of the fiduciary
rule, one that would likely get a sympathetic hearing from laissez
faire GOP congressional leaders.  But whether or not the rule
survives, Mr. Kitces's take highlights an important point: Just
because an advisor isn't trying to fleece you doesn't mean he or
she is qualified to help you.


* Judge Grants Suit for Millions Who Got Movie-Promoting Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick at St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports a federal judge
on January 18 granted a motion that will allow lawyers to sue on
behalf of millions of people who received robocalls featuring
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Promoters of the "Last Ounce of Courage" movie called about four
million residential households, plaintiffs' lawyers claim. Those
who picked up heard Huckabee's voice and what "appeared as surveys
to recipients about traditional American values," U.S. District
Judge E. Richard Webber's ruling said. Webber, summarizing the
plaintiffs' allegations, wrote that the call recipients were then
told "if they believed in freedom and liberty, they would enjoy
the movie."

Ron and Dorit Golan, of St. Louis County, are on the Do Not Call
registry and did not consent to calls, making those calls a
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, their lawyers
say.

Ronald J. Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- with Schultz
and Associates LLP, one of those lawyers, said that under the act,
callers can be penalized $500 per violation, meaning a potential
of $2 billion across all class members. The penalty can rise to
$1,500 each if the violation was "knowing or willful," he said.

But Eisenberg also said that most class action suits settle.

"That's a huge risk for a defendant not to settle," he said.

Promoters also sent out 30 million text messages to promote the
movie, Eisenberg said, but his clients did not receive one and the
time has expired to sue over those texts.

Defense lawyers did not immediately return a message seeking
comment.

The movie, about "faith, family and freedom," spent two to three
weeks in theaters beginning Sept. 14, 2012, and did not do well
there, according to court filings.

Those filings say about one million "live responses" to the
robocalls were detected, suggesting that someone picked up the
call. The Golans received two calls on their answering machine.

The Golans sued the next month in St. Louis County Circuit Court.
The suit was removed to federal court in 2014 and originally
dismissed by Webber over concerns about the extent of "injury"
suffered by the Golans. The judge's decision was overturned by a
federal appeals court in 2015, however.

Lawyers for the defendants, including Texas doctor and businessman
James R. Leininger, who sank $10 million into the movie, argued
that the case was too big and complicated to qualify for class
action status.

But Webber ruled that defendants have records of the calls that
they made and wrote that "it makes much more sense to proceed as a
class action rather than attempting to join several thousand
individuals in one suit or bringing several thousand individual
suits."

He also ruled that the issue of whether some call recipients had
consented to the calls by taking part in previous telephone
conversations about religious freedom was better handled all at
once.

Although courts are split on what constitutes an actionable injury
in these types of cases, Webber cited a North Carolina case and
said that he believes that unwanted calls can constitute an injury
"due to interruption, distraction, and invasion of privacy."

Huckabee and two other defendants have been dismissed from the
case.


* Massachusetts Decision to Publish Data Breach to Impact Big Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Orum Hernandez, writing for Legaltech News, reports that
the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business
Regulation announced that the agency will make information
regarding data breaches affecting the state's residents going back
to 2007 available online for public viewing.

Updates to the state's Public Records Law signed into effect last
June by Governor Charlie Baker gave the agency authority to make
information of "significant interest" public.  Consumer Affairs
Undersecretary John Chapman, who heads the agency, said in a
statement that "the Data Breach Notification Archive is a public
record that the public and media have every right to view."
At present, the Data Breach Notification Archive made public by
the decision includes all 10 of the agency's annual reports, with
each compiling information on the breached organization; date of
the breach; number of state residents affected; and type of
breach. Prior to the announcement, Massachusetts data breach
information was available only by filing a specific public records
request with the agency.

Most states require that companies and organizations file notice
of data breaches affecting state residents with the offices of
their respective attorneys general in addition to notifying
affected parties, but do not publish specific data breach
information broadly.  But Massachusetts is by no means the first
state to make its data breach records public.  California's data
breach notification laws allow public access to both the data
breach notification information received by the state's attorney
general and the letter that is sent by a compromised government or
business entity to residents affected by its breach. Washington
and Oregon both updated their data breach laws in 2015 and 2016,
respectively, to include requirements for public access for
breaches that affect over a certain number of residents.
Bess Hinson -- bess.hinson@nelsonmullins.com -- an associate at
Nelson Mullins in the Privacy and Information Security practice
group, said the Massachusetts' public archive could make companies
vulnerable to scrutiny from plaintiffs' attorneys looking for
opportunities for litigation.

"It heightens the litigation risks," Ms. Hinson said.  "It changes
how we describe the risks to our clients."

Chris Dore, a partner at Edelson, said that public data breach
databases may indeed help law firms conduct background research on
potential data security violations on behalf of consumers,
especially in trying to demonstrate patterns of data security
negligence, but are not likely to significantly change the firm's
litigation strategy.

Mauricio Paez -- mfpaez@jonesday.com -- partner at Jones Day,
found the potential increase of plaintiff-side ligation against
companies to be less pressing because recent Supreme Court rulings
regarding standing in data breach cases have set a high bar for
demonstrating potential or immediate harm caused by breaches.

"For those breaches that are candidates for private claims by the
plaintiffs bar, those tend to be the very large breaches, and
those are made public anyway because they're highly publicized,"
Mr. Paez noted.

Ms. Hinson said that the more pressing concern for companies in
the trend towards public disclosure of data breaches is one of
reputation, which can in turn affect the value of a company,
especially going into any expected mergers and acquisitions.

While companies may assume they can avoid public scrutiny,
attorneys would be well served to warn corporate clients of the
risks of trying to conceal data breaches from consumers.

"We have to make it apparent to the company that you can try to
fly under the radar, but this information is online now.  Whether
or not you put a notice on your website or tweet about it, it is
online and it is publicly available," she cautioned.

A potential hiccup in the agency's decision to make Massachusetts'
data breach notification archive public is its apparent conflict
with the state's data breach notification law, which prohibits
companies from notifying affected state residents of the nature of
data breaches.  Massachusetts is currently the only state with
such a provision in its data breach notification laws.

Mr. Paez noted that attorneys are currently required to file
information with the Massachusetts attorney general's office
describing the nature of the breach.  But because that information
will be made publicly available under this new policy, the
attorney may inevitably violate the current data breach
notification law.  "That's not well reconciled," he said.
Mr. Paez further suggested that the Office of Consumer Affairs and
Business Regulation may want to reconsider what information they
provide about the nature of data breaches in order to comply with
the current law.

"As they make this information readily available, they may try to
think about the ways that they can make available the details of
the incident," Mr. Paez suggested.

Will Daugherty -- wdaugherty@bakerlaw.com -- counsel at
BakerHostetler, said the spirit of the data breach notification
law was likely intended to protect companies from having to
disclose information that would allow potential cyberattackers to
mimic successful breach tactics. But that reasoning falls flat
when you consider what information companies typically provide in
their data breach reporting to the state.

"In practice, when companies describe the nature of the incident,
they are not providing details that would allow a potential hacker
to copy-cat," Mr. Daugherty said.

Messrs. Daugherty and Paez both suggested that the Massachusetts
legislature may also want to consider making changes to the data
breach notification law to bring it into alignment with the Office
of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation's new transparency
policy.

In the mean time, Mr. Daugherty said attorneys filing data breach
notifications may want to take caution in the information they
provide about the nature of breaches.  "There's some gray area in
the law about how much detail is required in these regulatory
notices.  Organizations may err on providing less detail in these
notices," Mr. Daugherty said.

"What makes sense is to look at the data breach notification law
and to see if that should be revised so that it could include a
description to individuals about the nature of the breach," Mr.
Paez said, adding that most states already require companies to
disclose information to consumers about the nature of data
breaches.

Mr. Daugherty, Mr. Paez, Ms. Hinson, and Mr. Dore all suggested
that other states are very likely to adopt similar transparency
policies around their data breach notifications in coming years,
especially in light of the multitude of high profile data breaches
in the last year.


* Supreme Court Scrutinizes Credit Card Swipe Fee Laws
------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a U.S.
Supreme Court case that was touted as a significant retail
business dispute with First Amendment ramifications seemed to
fizzle fast on Jan. 10 as justices questioned whether freedom of
speech was involved at all.

The case Expression Hair Design v. Schneiderman tests whether
New York can dictate what merchants say to their customers about
the different prices they charge for credit card and cash
payments.  Ten other states, including California, Connecticut,
Florida, Massachusetts and Texas, have similar laws that prohibit
merchants from imposing surcharges to cover the "swipe fee" that
pay credit-card companies, laws which in some cases have been
interpreted to prevent merchants from using the word "surcharge."
The credit-card industry has lobbied for such laws since the
1980s, fearing that describing the higher price as a "surcharge"
would discourage shoppers from using credit cards.  The case
argued on Jan. 10 was also viewed as a possible barometer of how
the court is viewing the importance of commercial speech these
days, a long-debated topic.

But justices wondered aloud on Jan. 10 whether the New York law at
issue actually dictates what merchants can say, or rather is a
routine commercial regulation barring merchants from imposing
surcharges on credit card transactions.

"What speech precisely do you think is being restricted?" Justice
Elena Kagan asked Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler, who argued on
behalf of New York merchants against the law.  "This statute is
not written in terms of speech, it's written in terms of imposing
a surcharge."

Mr. Gupta said the law had the effect of prohibiting merchants,
under criminal penalties, from describing their prices as a credit
card surcharge, rather than calling the lower cash price a
"discount," which is allowed.

"Merchants in this case want to engage in truthful speech,"
Mr. Gupta said.  "They want to disclose more."

But Justice Stephen Breyer jumped in to express fear that by
treating the New York law as a free speech violation, the court
would be "diving headlong into an area called price regulation."
Justice Breyer added, "Price regulation goes on all over the place
in regulatory agencies."

The disagreement over the actual meaning of the New York law
persisted throughout the arguments, leading Justice Samuel Alito
Jr. to say at one point, "I feel somewhat uncomfortable about
ruling on the constitutionality of this statute without knowing
how the New York Court of Appeals would interpret the statute.  So
why shouldn't we certify that question of interpretation to that
court before we plunge into this First Amendment issue?"
The suit was pursued in federal court, and New York courts did not
weigh in on the Expression Hair Design case.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2015 that the New York law
amounted to "a pricing practice" and did not violate the First
Amendment.

Sensing the trend of the court, Eric Feigin, an assistant to the
U.S. solicitor general, urged the court to remand the case to the
Second Circuit and state courts "because there's clearly some
dispute about what the New York law does."

Deputy New York solicitor general Steven Wu got little pushback
from the court when he told the court, "The plain text of New
York's statute refers only to a pricing practice and not to any
speech."

The exception was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wondered if the law
suppresses "truthful information," adding, "if this is so
complicated, doesn't that indicate the statute is vague?"

Justice Alito asked Mr. Wu whether the New York law applied to all
merchants.  "I mean, suppose some kids have a lemonade stand or
they're washing cars and they say a glass of lemonade, $1 and then
somebody comes up to them and says I'd like to buy that with a
credit card.  It might happen today.  I have never seen anybody
younger than me buy anything with cash."

Amid laughter, Mr. Wu replied, "The statute has no exemption for
kids selling lemonade."  He added, however, that "I think
prosecutorial discretion would almost certainly be exercised in
that situation."


* Supreme Court to Review Three Class Action Waiver Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Lawson, Esq. -- megan.lawson@orrick.com -- and Joe Liburt,
Esq. -- jliburt@orrick.com -- of Orrick, in an article for
JDSupra, report that in August of 2016, the Ninth Circuit created
a deeper circuit-split on whether class action waivers in
arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act
("NLRA") with its decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP.

As expected, the Supreme Court granted review on Jan. 16 of three
of the conflicting Court of Appeals decisions.  It granted review
of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB,
808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015). The Fifth Circuit rejected the
National Labor Relations Board's ("NLRB") position that class
action waivers unlawfully interfere with employees' NLRA rights to
engage in concerted activity, agreeing with the Second and Eighth
Circuits.  The Ninth and Seventh Circuits, on the other hand,
adopted the NLRB's position that class action waivers violate the
NLRA.

The Supreme Court also granted review in Morris v. Ernst & Young,
834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 823
F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016).  The Seventh Circuit held that an
arbitration agreement precluding collective arbitration or
collective action violates section 7 of the NLRA and is
unenforceable under the FAA. The Ninth Circuit agreed and
concluded that compulsory class action waivers violate sections 7
and 8 of the NLRA by limiting workers' rights to act collectively,
noting in footnote 4 that agreements containing an "opt-out"
clause for pursuing class claims do not violate the NLRA.

All three cases have been consolidated and will be argued
together.


                            *********

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  * * *