CAR_Public/170201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, February 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 23



                            Headlines

ACCOUNT SERVICES: "Rabinovich" Sues Over Collection Violations
ADT CORPORATION: Baker Renews Bid for Certification of 3 Classes
AETNA INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AMERICAN HONDA: Certification of Class Sought in "Katz" Suit
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

APC WORKFORCE: Faces "McNiff" Suit in District of Minnesota
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Court Affirms Win in Bias Class Suit
BCC CAFE: "Powell" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. W.Va.
BELLAMY'S: Class Action Litigation Funding Better for Clients

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Goldman Loses Appeal to Unblock $11-Bil. Suit
BERNALILLO COUNTY, NM: Jail Initiates Reform Measures
BLUE LIGHT: Faces "Knutson" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Class Certification Sought in "Bogatzki" Suit
CEB INC: Board Probed for Possible Breaches of Fiduciary Duty

CIMAREX ENERGY: "Duncan" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. Okla.
CRST EXPEDITED: Faces "Reed" Suit in Middle District of Florida
CVS PHARMACY: "Bolton" Suit Seeks Relief Under California Law
FACEBOOK INC: Defrauded Shareholders and Advertisers, Suit Claims
FCA US: Faces "Stephens" Suit in Middle District of Alabama

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dawes Seeks Certification of Class
GAP INC: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Northern District of New York
GERMANY: ONCD Not Party to Genocide Lawsuit Dispute in U.S.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Law Firm Investigates Hep C Drug Overcharges
HUYSSEN INC: "Pellegrini" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.

IKO MANUFACTURING: Faces "Leeds" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pa.
INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over XARACOLL
INTEGRATED RECOVERY: Faces "Grude" Suit in District of Colorado
JACKSONS FARMING: Class Cert. Sought in "Sanchez-Rodriguez" Suit
KEIVAN SARRAF: Faces Ryoo Dental Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Mass. Over Non-Payment of Medical Bills
LIVANOVA: Faces "Foster" Suit in District of South Carolina
LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish Officials Undecided on Lawsuit
LUKE H. BALCHUNAS: American Maritime Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
LYONS DOUGHTY: Faces "Saroza" Suit in New Jersey

MAGNUM HUNTER: Sagacity Inc. Suit Moved to E.D. of Okla.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MANAGED CARE: Faces "Rabionet" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
MARKUM ENTERPRISES: McNeal Seeks to Certify Class of Laborers
MAURY COBB: Gomez Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco

MCGILL UNIVERSITY: Westmount Residents Sue Over Ventilation Noise
MINNESOTA: Court Nixes Suit vs. Department of Commerce
MORGAN COUNTY, GA: Inmate Seeks Info on Consent Decree Compliance
NATIONAL BUREAU: Faces "Aronova" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NOLI CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cross" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.

NORTH HILLS: "Cordova" Suit Seeks $25,000+ Worth of Damages
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OXFORD HEALTH: Mom Seeks Coverage for Son's Wilderness Therapy
P.S. MANAGEMENT: Faces "Dotson" Suit in S.D. of W.Va.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Feb. 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

PENN RIDGE: "Castellon" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
PETSMART INC: Faces Suit for Overcharging on Animal Food
PIXARBIO CORPORATION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Rappley" Suit in C.D. of Cal.
QUAKER OATS: "Phung" Suit Transferred from N.D. Ill. to C.D. Cal.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
RECOLOGY INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in California Superior Court
REYER PARKING: " Sabala-Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SOLARCITY CORP: "Lucero" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to N.D. Tex.

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Customers File Auto Parts Fraud Class Action
SOUTHERN CO: Misled Investors on Facility Construction Progress
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Appeals High Court's Class Action Ruling
SPOTLESS: IMF Bentham to Fund Second Investor Class Action
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Says Facial Scans Does Not Cause Harm

TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ronquillo-Griffin" Suit in S.D. Cal.
TWO BROS: Garcia Molina Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
UNITED STATES: Trump Immigrant Order Stayed After Class Action
UNITED STATES: ACLU's Class Action Over Trump Muslim Ban Ongoing
UNITED STATES: ACLU Raises $24MM After Travel Ban Class Action

UNITED STATES: Faces "Dominick" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Proposed Data Breach Class Rejected
USAA CASUALTY: "Archuleta" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to D. Col.
VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 25,000 British Motorists Join Dieselgate Case

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Frees Home Depot From Energy Star Label Suit
* Shareholder Derivative Actions Could Raise Due-Process Issues





                            *********


ACCOUNT SERVICES: "Rabinovich" Sues Over Collection Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RABINOVICH, the Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNT SERVICES, USA, the
Defendant, Case No. CV-17-874728 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Jan.
20, 2017), seeks to recover equitable and monetary relief to
remedy Account's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of himself and two
other classes of persons similarly situated, to remedy the alleged
ongoing unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive business practices of
Account Services, USA.

Account routinely demands payment from consumers on debts after
consumers have disputed the debts in writing and requested Account
cease contact. Account routinely adds its own fees to the debt
that were not part of the original obligation the consumer is said
to have owed. Account allegedly uses deceptive means to
communicate with consumers, including spoofing area codes and
phone numbers to disguise its out of state origin.


Account Services offers specialized collections since 1970.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Frederick, Esq.
          Michael F. Berler, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER EEC
          767 East 185th Street,
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502 1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


ADT CORPORATION: Baker Renews Bid for Certification of 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DALE BAKER, individually,
and behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE ADT
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT
SECURITY SERVICES, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
2:15-cv-02038-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), files a renewed amended motion
for class certification.

Mr. Baker moves the Court for class certification of his Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act claim, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act claim, and unjust enrichment claim against the
Defendants.  He brings the action on behalf of himself and a
putative Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals,
defined as:

     All persons who contracted for an ADT wireless residential
     security system between November 9, 2010 and August 15, 2016
     (the "Nationwide Class").

The Plaintiff also brings the action on behalf of a putative
Illinois Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as:

     All Illinois residents who contracted for an ADT wireless
     residential security system between November 9, 2011 and
     August 15, 2016 (the "Illinois Class").

Lastly, Mr. Baker brings the action on behalf of a putative Class
of similarly situated individuals defined as:

     All Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa,
     Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and
     New York residents who contracted for an ADT wireless
     residential security system between the applicable statutes
     of limitations and August 15, 2016 (the "Unjust Enrichment
     Class").

Excluded from the Nationwide Class, Illinois Class, and Unjust
Enrichment Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants' agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest, and
those entities' current and former employees, officers, and
directors; (2) all putative class members in either Cheatham v.
The ADT Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-02137-DGC (D. Ariz.) or
Edenborough v. ADT, LLC, 16-cv-2233-JST (N.D. Cal.),2 (3) the
Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's immediate
family; (4) any person who executes and files a timely request for
exclusion from the Class; (5) any persons who have had their
claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise
released; and (6) the legal representatives, successors and
assigns of any such excluded person.

Also excluded are claims for personal injury or property loss or
damage relating to any actual break-in at a class member's
residence.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QclMkuxT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com


AETNA INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Aetna Inc. in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna stock between
August 15, 2016 through January 20, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aetna and its
senior executives attempted to leverage Aetna's participation in
the Public Exchanges for favorable treatment from regulators
regarding the Humana acquisition; (2) Aetna threatened to limit
its participation in public health insurance exchanges if the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") attempted to block the merger; (3)
Aetna did not withdraw from certain public health insurance
exchanges for business reasons as Defendants claimed, but to
follow through on its threat of leaving the marketplace once the
DOJ filed suit and to improve its litigation position; (4) Aetna
withdrew from public health insurance exchanges that were
profitable for Aetna; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Aetna's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 27, 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.


AMERICAN HONDA: Certification of Class Sought in "Katz" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SAMUEL KATZ, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. AMERICAN
HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation, and J.D. POWER
AND ASSOCIATES, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-04410-
CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal.), files with the Court a motion for class
certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 14, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XpgjT7Qc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com

Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. is represented by:

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6666
          E-mail: Mmallow@Sidley.com
                  Rstraus@Sidley.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-4716
          E-mail: emattson@sidley.com

Defendant JD Power and Associates is represented by:

          Justin Penn, Esq.
          Paul Rodriguez, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 704-300
          E-mail: jpenn@hinshawlaw.com
                  prodriguez@mail.hinshaw.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical
Collection Agency. The case is styled as Nikadam Khaimov, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00352 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2017).

The Defendant is a recovery agency for patient collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


APC WORKFORCE: Faces "McNiff" Suit in District of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against APC Workforce
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as Scott T. McNiff, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. APC Workforce Solutions, LLC, doing business as
ZeroChaos; and Epicor Software Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-00222-DWF-BRT (D. Minn., Jan. 24, 2017). The case is
assigned to: Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank.

APC Workforce provides staffing solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn J Wanta, Esq.
          Hans W Lodge, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME
          JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252 3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252 3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  hlodge@baillonthome.com


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Banc of California, Inc. securities between
October 29, 2015 and January 20, 2017.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements as well as
failed to disclose material, adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including that the Company
had extensive ties to an alleged "fraudster" named Jason Galanis
and that these connections could create substantial regulatory
risk and jeopardize the market price of the Company's stock. As a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
Banc of California's business, operations, and prospects were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis throughout
the Class Period.

On October 18, 2016, an article published on Seeking Alpha alleged
that Banc of California had concealed numerous connections between
it and Galanis, who has been convicted of criminal securities
fraud. The article found that: (1) Banc of California CEO Steven
Sugarman ("Sugarman") was the indirect owner of Valor Group, a
company involved in Galanis's convicted fraud; and (2) separately,
Galanis controlled COR Capital, a company of which Sugarman is the
founder and CEO. The Seeking Alpha article also alleged that Banc
of California had used an off-balance sheet entity to make loans
to insiders. Following this news, Banc of California shares
declined $4.61, or 29.05%, per share to close at $11.26 on October
18, 2016.

On January 23, 2017, Banc of California announced the resignation
of Sugarman and that the SEC had opened an investigation into
whether the Company had misled investors in its response to the
Seeking Alpha report. Following this news, Banc of California
shares declined $1.50, or 9.29%, per share to close at $14.65 on
January 23, 2017.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Banc of California
securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss or continue
to hold shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact J. Brandon
Walker, Esq. by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Banc of California lawsuit,
please go to www.bespc.com/banc-of-california.


BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Court Affirms Win in Bias Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins at Law360 reports a California appeals court
affirmed on January 20 a lower court's decision giving Bank of
America Corp. an early win in a consolidated class action alleging
the bank terminated its debt collection employees based on their
race, but reversed an order that awarded the bank $620,000 in
attorneys' fees.

An Appellate Division panel found that the employees had not been
able to point to specific evidence that could support a finding
that the bank's reason for termination was a pretext for
discrimination.

"[B]ased upon the evidence presented in the motion for summary
judgment, plaintiffs' claims were unreasonable and without
foundation," the appeals court said.

Eleven former bank employees who worked as debt collectors alleged
in the suit that the bank terminated their employment based on
their Hispanic race and treated them differently than Caucasian
employees, who engaged in the same conduct. But the lower court
found that evidence "conclusively" established that the employees'
fraudulent conduct led to their termination, and "undisputed
evidence" established that the bank's investigation was "race
neutral."

According to court documents, the bank launched an internal
investigation into the California employees' collection practices
after if found more than 50 collection agents in New Jersey had
engaged in fraudulent collection practices in order to meet
management-imposed collection goals; all of the agents were fired.
The bank suspected similar fraudulent activity was happening at
its California location, and its investigation found that 13
Hispanic debt collectors in the bank's Pasadena office reported
higher than average debt collections, according to the opinion.

Bank managers confronted those employees and three of the 13
accused employees admitted to fraudulently reporting their
collections to meet goals, the opinion said. The others denied any
wrongdoing, and the bank terminated all 13 employees.

Eleven of the accused employees then filed lawsuits, claiming that
the bank's actions violated multiple provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act and caused the employees emotional
distress. The plaintiffs also alleged the bank discriminated
against them and retaliated against them for complaining about the
bank's "oppressive and overly zealous collection tactics,"
according to court documents.

Bank of America urged the court to grant its motion for summary
judgment, arguing that undisputed evidence established that the
plaintiffs were terminated following its race-neutral
investigation that disclosed they engaged in fraudulent collection
practices.

The lower court agreed with the bank, granting its motion, which
the appeals court affirmed on January 19. However, the appeals
court also found that the plaintiffs didn't know about the bank's
internal investigation until discovery was conducted and therefore
the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the
plaintiffs to pay the bank's attorneys' fees.

Without evidence of the bank's investigation, the employees had a
reason to suspect that that the bank treated Hispanic employees
differently than it treated Caucasian employees, and therefore
they were entitled to conduct discovery to determine whether their
allegation was true, the appeals court said. If they had continued
to litigate their claims, after they discovered the evidence, then
they would be subject to an attorneys' fee award, but in this
situation they didn't, the appeals court said.

Representatives for Bank of America declined to comment on January
20.

Counsel for the class didn't respond on January 20 to requests for
comment.


BCC CAFE: "Powell" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Morgan Powell and Taylor Ward, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs
v. BCC Cafe, Inc.; BMC Cafe, Inc.; BRC Cafe, Inc.; MMC Cafe, Inc.;
PMC Cafe, Inc. and all D/B/A Southern Exposure; Charleston Eatery,
Inc.; Bluefield Eatery, Inc.; each D/B/A Elite Gentlemen's Club;
and Mahesh Patel, the Defendants, Case No. 16-C-404, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Mercer County, to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of West Virginia (Bluefield). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00765 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants offer lunch and supper meals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
          GARRY G. GEFFERRT, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          Martinsburg, WV 25402
          Telephone: (304) 262 4436
          Facsimile: (304) 596-2472
          E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net

               - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG
          836 Bonifant Street
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587 9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587 9397

The Defendants are represented by:

          Constance H. Weber, Esq.
          KAY CASTO & CHANEY
          P. O. Box 2031
          Charleston, WV 25327-2031
          Telephone: (304) 345 8900
          Facsimile: (304) 345 8909
          E-mail: c.weber@kaycasto.com

               - and -

          Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON
          100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2150
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 808 2101


BELLAMY'S: Class Action Litigation Funding Better for Clients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that announcing
that funding has been secured for a class action against infant
formula company Bellamy's, Maurice Blackburn said the arrangement
proves litigation funding competition is better for clients.

Litigation funding has been confirmed for a shareholder class
action against ASX-listed Bellamy's.

Maurice Blackburn will lead the class action on behalf of some of
the company's largest institutional shareholders.  Principal
Ben Slade announced that the firm had secured the support of
litigation funder ICP for the proceedings.

"Our firm has long argued that greater competition in the
litigation funding arena would ultimately see better products
offered for clients to drive down costs and see more money
returned to those seeking justice.  This offering does just that,"
Mr Slade said.

Following a shock announcement in December that Chinese sales were
not faring as well as the baby formula company had suggested, a
class action to compensate Bellamy's shareholders is underway.

Mr Slade said his team has been working closely with ICP, a group
that only funds litigation relating to ASX shareholder claims.

"We [. . .] are confident that ICP's benchmark rates on offer,
combined with a guaranteed safety net on the recovery upon
success, will give our clients greater returns and peace of mind,"
Mr Slade said.

In a statement, ICP CEO John Walker added that the client offering
features benchmark funding commissions of between 8 and 25 per
cent.  The focus of ICP's claim management will be funding
services focused on "greater access to justice and maximising
shareholders' net recoveries", he said.

"ICP has also included a safety net provision that offers
additional investor protection by ensuring that they won't receive
any less than 50 per cent of a net recovery (after costs are
accounted for) on success.  These are all innovations geared
towards a better client recovery," Mr Walker said.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Goldman Loses Appeal to Unblock $11-Bil. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge
Gregory Woods in Manhattan has affirmed a decision by U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein barring A&G Goldman
Partnership and Pamela Goldman from pursuing a lawsuit in Florida
federal court to recover $11 billion from the estate of former
Bernard Madoff investor Jeffry Picower for his role in the Ponzi
scheme.

A copy of Judge Wood's decision is available at
https://is.gd/AIekdo from Leagle.com.

Reuters relates that the firm of Irving H. Picard, the liquidating
trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, said the
litigation could undermine a $7.2 billion settlement meant to
benefit the Ponzi schemer's former clients.

Martin O'Sullivan, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, recalls that
Judge Bernstein in February 2016 said Ms. Goldman's lawsuit is
barred by a $7.2 billion settlement between Mr. Picower and Mr.
Picard, wherein Mr. Picard recovered $5 billion and the government
got $2.2 billion.  The settlement, according to Law360, included a
permanent injunction barring all claims against Mr. Picower that
duplicated Mr. Picard's lawsuit.

Ms. Goldman, Law360 relates, is one of a group of investors who
have been trying to sue Mr. Picower unsuccessfully since 2010 and
had argued that her latest lawsuit brings fresh claims alleging
Mr. Picower, who died in 2009, had direct control of the Ponzi
scheme and should therefore be liable for the entire $18 billion
in investor funds lost to it.

Law360 quoted Judge Woods as saying, "The Goldman . . . complaint
seeks recovery for alleged wrongs that affected all creditors in
the same way and therefore, presses a claim that belongs
exclusively to the trustee."

                    About Bernard L. Madoff

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff
orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, with losses
topping US$50 billion.  On Dec. 15, 2008, the Honorable Louis A.
Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the application of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation for a decree adjudicating that the
customers of BLMIS are in need of the protection afforded by the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.  The District Court's
Protective Order (i) appointed Irving H. Picard, Esq., as trustee
for the liquidation of BLMIS, (ii) appointed Baker & Hostetler LLP
as his counsel, and (iii) removed the SIPA Liquidation proceeding
to the Bankruptcy Court (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789)
(Lifland, J.).  Mr. Picard has retained AlixPartners LLP as claims
agent.

On April 13, 2009, former BLMIS clients filed an involuntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Bernard Madoff (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 09-11893).  The petitioning creditors -- Blumenthal &
Associates Florida General Partnership, Martin Rappaport
Charitable Remainder Unitrust, Martin Rappaport, Marc Cherno,  and
Steven Morganstern -- assert US$64 million in claims against Mr.
Madoff based on the balances contained in the last statements they
got from BLMIS.

On April 14, 2009, Grant Thornton UK LLP as receiver placed Madoff
Securities International Limited in London under bankruptcy
protection pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 09-16751).  The Chapter 15 case was later
transferred to Manhattan.  In June 2009, Judge Lifland approved
the consolidation of the Madoff SIPA proceedings and the
bankruptcy
case.

Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 29, 2009, sentenced Mr. Madoff to 150
years of life imprisonment for defrauding investors in United
States v. Madoff, No. 09-CR-213 (S.D.N.Y.).

From recoveries in lawsuits coupled with money advanced by SIPC,
Mr. Picard has commenced distributions to victims.  As of Dec. 14,
2016, the SIPA Trustee has recovered more than $11.486 billion
and, following the eight interim distribution in January 2017,
will raise total distributions to approximately $9.72 billion,
which includes more than $839.6 million in advances committed by
SIPC.


BERNALILLO COUNTY, NM: Jail Initiates Reform Measures
-----------------------------------------------------
Marie C. Baca, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that
leaders from six states traveled to Albuquerque to learn about
Bernalillo County's criminal justice initiatives, including those
focused on reducing the county's jail population.

Elected officials and administrative staff traveled from North
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Louisiana, and other
counties in New Mexico for a two-day event hosted in conjunction
with the National Association of Counties.  On the itinerary was a
tour of the county jail, an observation of a county meeting, and
presentations from Bernalillo County officials and nonprofit
organizations.

"Counties across the country are looking for criminal justice
strategies that make systems more efficient and reduce
inappropriate incarceration, particularly the number of people
with mental health disorders who end up in jail," said County
Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins in a statement.

"Here in Bernalillo County, we have been cooperating with our
partners and stakeholders across multiple systems, using data-
driven strategies, to achieve concrete results."

A report provided by the county to the Journal shows the total
jail population as of Dec. 31 was 1,224 inmates, including those
individuals awaiting trial at home through the county's Community
Custody Program.  That's a 23.2 percent drop from the year prior,
and a 41.8 percent decline from Dec. 31, 2014.  The county
attributes that decrease to criminal justice reform measures such
as reducing the amount of time parole violators spend in jail
before receiving a hearing and expanding the early plea program.

The reform measures are part of an effort to comply with a 20-
year-old federal class action lawsuit that claimed conditions at
the jail violated inmates' constitutional rights.

The decline received significant public attention in recent months
when Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry presented a study indicating
the lower jail population was correlated with an increase in the
city's crime rate.  An analysis from the University of New Mexico
disagreed, saying the correlation was weak and had been used
incorrectly.

Nancy Fishman, a project director at the nonprofit Vera Institute,
led a presentation at the county's event called "Reducing Your
Local Jail Population: Getting Started." In it, she emphasized
that it's essential for counties to seek collaboration and, as
often as possible, consensus, throughout the process of
instituting criminal justice reforms.

"What is a jail? Who should be in there and who should not?" said
Ms. Fishman.  "If you have a lot of different answers to those
questions, it's hard to measure how you're making progress toward
your goals."


BLUE LIGHT: Faces "Knutson" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Light Security,
Inc. The case is captioned as Erik Knutson, Individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Blue
Light Security, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00134-LAB-
JMA (S.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Larry Alan Burns.

Blue Light sells and installs home security systems and business
burglar alarm systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Class Certification Sought in "Bogatzki" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bogatzki moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit captioned DAVID BOGATZKI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLP and
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00077 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, Mr. Bogatzki asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, Mr.
Bogatzki states.  He asserts that he is obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, Mr. Bogatzki contends.

Mr. Bogatzki also asks to be appointed as class representative and
further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O1OtH4SB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


CEB INC: Board Probed for Possible Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that it is
investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of
CEB Inc. for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of state law in connection with the sale of the Company
to Gartner, Inc.

Under the terms of the transaction, CEB shareholders will receive
only $54.00 in cash and 0.2284 of a share of Gartner common stock
for each share of CEB stock they own. The investigation concerns
whether the Board of CEB breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders and whether Gartner is underpaying for the Company.
The transaction may undervalue the Company and would result in a
loss for many CEB shareholders. For example, shares of CEB stock
traded at $90.20 per share on July 16, 2015, and the price being
paid by Gartner is below an analyst price target of $91.00 per
share.

If you own shares of CEB stock and wish to discuss the legal
ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions, you may
e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will,
without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510,
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/ceb-inc-nyse-ceb/,or calling
toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have
successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and
shareholders.


CIMAREX ENERGY: "Duncan" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Duncan on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cimarex
Energy Co., the Defendant, Case No. CJ-17-00001, was removed from
the Dist. Ct. of Custer County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The Western District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00076-W to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Lee R. West.

Cimarex Energy is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and
production company headquartered in Denver, Colorado, with
operations primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          REX A SHARP PA - KANSAS
          5301 W 75th St
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley Ward Welsh, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS-TULSA
          100 W 5th St., Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
          Telephone: (918) 595 4800
          Facsimile: (918) 595 4990
          E-mail: bwelsh@gablelaw.com


CRST EXPEDITED: Faces "Reed" Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CRST Expedited, Inc.
The case is titled as Walter Reed, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CRST
Expedited, Inc., a foreign for profit company, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00199-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2017). The case is
assigned to hon. Judge James D. Whittemore.

CRST Expedited provides truckload carrier services in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, TAMPA P.A.
          One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
          201 N Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


CVS PHARMACY: "Bolton" Suit Seeks Relief Under California Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHONETTEBOLTON, FRANK CIARAMITARO, EDNA FRENCH, TINA HORNER,
GRISELDA MEDINA, HELEN HONG NGUYEN, EDNA ROSAS, GEORGIANNA M.
SCHOTT and MICHELLE YOO, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs,
v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Jan. 20, 2017), seeks to recover
relief under California law for Defendants' breaches of their
contractual and legal obligation to pay promised and vested
vacation pay to employees.

According to the complaint, by substantially reducing the vacation
hours allocated on January 1, 2015 to Plaintiffs and the proposed
class and by subsequently failing to pay Plaintiffs and the
proposed class their unused allocated vacation hours on or by
March 15, 2016, Defendants have breached their contract with
Plaintiffs and the proposed class. By substantially reducing the
vacation hours allocated on January 1, 2015 to Plaintiffs and the
proposed class and by subsequently failing to pay Plaintiffs and
the proposed class their unused vacation hours on or by March 15,
2016, Defendants have violated Cal. Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a chain of retail pharmacies in Southern
California and elsewhere.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph L. Paller Jr., Esq.
          Robert A. Cantore, Esq.
          Benjamin O'Donnell, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN, A LAW CORPORATION
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2732
          Telephone: (323) 938 3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937 9139


FACEBOOK INC: Defrauded Shareholders and Advertisers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wilson at Las Vegas Review-Journal reports a Las Vegas law
firm is pursuing class-action lawsuits against Facebook Inc. that
accuse the social networking giant of defrauding shareholders and
advertisers when it failed to disclose miscalculations in video
metrics used to boost revenue.

The lawsuits, filed in federal courts in Las Vegas and San
Francisco, claim that top Facebook executives learned in April
2015 that the company had for a year overstated the duration of
video views on the site by up to 80 percent, and then sold off
company stock in unprecedented quantities while concealing the
error from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the public.

It was not until September that Facebook publicly admitted the
mistake, after a Wall Street Journal article revealed concerns
among ad buyers who had learned of it privately. But quarterly
statements issued soon after that disclosure "omitted any mention
of the metric errors, possible litigation, or revenue losses
resulting from the faulty advertising metrics," one of the
lawsuits states.

More flaws in Facebook's advertising metrics were made public in
the ensuing weeks. In early November, Facebook announced decreased
future ad revenue, and the company's stock value dropped by $4
billion the following day.

Las Vegas law firm Eglet Prince filed the lawsuits on behalf of
plaintiffs living in Nevada and elsewhere who either bought shares
in the company or purchased video advertisements. The lawsuit
filed in Nevada seeks class-action status on behalf of
shareholders. The lawsuit filed in California seeks class-action
status on behalf of advertisers.

No one at Facebook could be reached for comment on the lawsuits.

Facebook artificially inflated average viewing time because it did
not include views of less than three seconds when it calculated
those metrics.

"That's like a professional ballplayer getting to discount all of
his strikeouts," said attorney Robert Eglet. Eglet said
advertisers were "grossly misled about just how much of their
advertising dollars were going to waste."

The Nevada lawsuit names as individual defendants Facebook CEO
Mark Zuckerberg, Chief Financial Officer David Wehner, Chief
Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Product Officer
Christopher Cox, Chief Technology Officer Michael Schroepfer,
former Chief Accounting Officer Jaspal Athwal, Vice President and
General Counsel Colin Stretch, Company Director Jan Koum, and Vice
President David Fischer as individual defendants.

Zuckerberg is accused of selling millions of Facebook shares while
in possession of adverse information that was not disclosed in
corporate filings, and the other executives named in the lawsuit
are accused of selling anywhere from thousands to hundreds of
thousands of shares.

The lawsuits describe advertising as Facebook's "single most
important revenue source."

"By misrepresenting the average time its millions of consumers
spent watching posted advertising videos, Facebook induced
advertisers . . . to continue to purchase advertising they would
not have otherwised purchased," lawyers assert in the lawsuit
filed in California. They also claim it led ad buyers to pay a
higher price than they otherwise would have paid.

The advertisers' suit was filed in late October, and earlier this
week, it was joined with another case brought against Facebook by
ad buyers who present essentially the same allegations. The
shareholders' suit was filed in late November.


FCA US: Faces "Stephens" Suit in Middle District of Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is captioned as John Stephens and Bill Turner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US
LLC, a limited liability company; and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., a Dutch corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00040-
WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala., Jan. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge W. Harold Albritton, III.

FCA US, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the
American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian
controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew England Brashier, Esq.
          Archibald (Archie) Irwin Grubb, II, Esq.
          Henry Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel Miles, III
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 495 1652
          Facsimile: (334) 954 7444
          E-mail: Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com
                  archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          C. Morris Mullin, Esq.
          David Cowan Rayfield, Esq.
          WALDREP, MULLIN & CALLAHAN, LLC
          111 12th St., Suite 300
          P.O. Box 351
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 320 0600
          Facsimile: (706) 320 0622
          E-mail: cmm@waldrepmullin.com
                  davidrayfield@waldrepmullin.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dawes Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Dawes and Debra Maloney move the Court to certify the
class described in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER DAWES and
DEBRA MALONEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, and LVNV FUNDING, LLC,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00078 (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiffs (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs contend, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiffs say.  They assert that they are obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiffs note.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask to be appointed as class representatives
and further ask the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oeSztaJ9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


GAP INC: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Northern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gap, Inc. The case
is entitled as Roy Campbell, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gap, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00081-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2017). The case
is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy.

Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American
worldwide clothing and accessories retailer. It was founded in
1969 by Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher and is headquartered in
San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GERMANY: ONCD Not Party to Genocide Lawsuit Dispute in U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Ngatjiheue at The Nambian reports that the Ovaherero,
Ovambanderu and Nama Council for Dialogue on the 1904 genocide
said it is not party to the lawsuit filed in the USA against
Germans to seek restorative justice for the genocide.

The group's chairperson, Gerson Katjirua, said in a statement,
read on his behalf at a press conference, that the ONCD was not
consulted.

He refuted claims that the court action had the backing of all the
Ovaherero and Nama people, as well as the assertion that the
plaintiffs were the exclusive representatives of all the Ovaherero
and Nama people.

"If these assertions are not put in their correct perspectives,
they will tremendously prejudice the ONCD 1904's advocacy mandate,
and the constituencies on whose behalf it is mandated to
advocate," he stressed.

Katjirua also said the US court action was only limited to the
Ovaherero and Nama communities, excluding the Ovambanderu
community, which had also lost both livestock and land at the
hands of the Germans, saying their leaders were lumped together
with the Ovaherero leaders.

"Furthermore, as ONCD 1904 has been an active player in both the
technical committee and the negotiating team of the government in
bilateral talks with its German counterpart, we reaffirm our
commitment to sustain our vigorous participation and meaningful
representation of our people's aspirations for restorative
justice," he added.

Katjirua urged the Namibian and German governments not to be
distracted by the US court action, and to continue with
negotiations towards an agreeable solution and finding closure on
the genocide issue.

He also called on vice president and chairperson of the
subcommittee on genocide talks, Nicky Iyambo to regularise the
relevant channels of communication.

Zed Ngavirue, the special envoy appointed by government to lead
negotiations with the German government, said he did not support
the US lawsuit because he was part of the official negotiation
process.

"How can I support the action, and then go negotiate? I am aware
of the action taken by other people because they were not happy
with our process. It is well-known that not many people are in
support of the class action, especially the chiefs' forum which is
working with the office of the vice president," Ngavirue said.

OvaHerero paramount chief Vekuii Rukoro, who was part of the US
court action, said via text message that he had no time for those
"busy with kindergarten politics".

"I am a very busy man, and I'm currently engaged with very serious
issues affecting the plight of my people against a very ruthless
regime. I have no time to waste commenting on the antics of those
busy with kindergarten politics," Rukoro said.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Law Firm Investigates Hep C Drug Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to the results of a recent congressional inquiry, Gilead
Sciences Inc. -- the maker of the two popular drugs for hepatitis
C patients, Sovaldi and Harvoni -- chose to pursue "high list
prices for the drugs instead of trying to make the treatments
widely available." The report goes on to explain that despite
being "fully aware" that it would make the drug unaffordable for
many patients, the company priced a 12-week course of Sovaldi and
Harvoni at $84,000 and $94,500, respectively.

In response to market pressure and public outcry over the drug's
prohibitively high prices, in February 2015, the company began to
offer discounts on Sovaldi and Harvoni aimed at reducing the cost
of those drugs by up "to 46%, on average."  Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., a leader in representing consumers in class action
lawsuits, is investigating whether those savings have been passed
on to patients and their health plans or kept by Pharmacy Benefits
Managers ("PBM"s), insurance industry middle-men who negotiate
prices with drug manufacturers and oversee prescription drug plans
on behalf of insurance providers and corporations.

If you take Sovaldi or Harvoni and are enrolled in a prescription
drug plan -- or if you are the sponsor of a plan offering those
drugs -- you may be overpaying for these medications and losing
out on significant rebates offered by drug manufacturers to make
the medication more affordable.  If you would like to know more or
discuss Keller Rohrback's investigation, please contact attorneys
Gretchen Obrist or Michael Meredith at (800) 776-6044 or via email
at info@kellerrohrback.com

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. -- http://www.krcomplexlit.com-- has
decades of experience helping consumers and insureds fight back
against fraud and abuse.  Keller Rohrback L.L.P. serves as lead
and co-lead counsel in class action lawsuits throughout the
country.  It has offices in New York, Seattle, Phoenix, Ronan,
Oakland, and Santa Barbara, our Complex Litigation Group.


HUYSSEN INC: "Pellegrini" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Pellegrini, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Huyssen, Incorporated doing business as Sedona Staffing, a
California corporation; Tempro, Inc., a Delaware corporation; L.A.
Leasing, Inc., an Illinois corporation; and Does 3 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-00020 16-00022436-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Cathy
Ann Bencivengo. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-
cv-00135-CAB-JMA to the proceeding.

Huyssen is a jobs, staffing & employment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
          Nicholas and Tomasevic
          225 Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325 0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shareef Farag, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTELER, LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com


IKO MANUFACTURING: Faces "Leeds" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IKO MANUFACTURING,
INC. The case is styled as FREDERICK LEEDS, DANA LEEDS, SVEN
BEAUCHMIN ELIZABETH BEAUCHMIN, KISHOR GANDHI, HEMA KANNAN GANDHI,
MICHAEL FABIANO, and SIMONA FABIANO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. IKO
MANUFACTURING, INC., IKO INDUSTRIES LTD., IKO MIDWEST INC., IKO
INDUSTRIES, INC., and IKO PRODUCTION, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00339-CDJ (E.D. Pa., Jan. 24, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. C. Darnell Jones, II.

Iko Manufacturing was founded in 1970. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of asphalt felts and coatings.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Dr Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867 2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685 0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over XARACOLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC on Jan. 29 announced the filing of a class action
lawsuit against Innocoll Holdings plc concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between November 3, 2016 and
December 29, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the March 27, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.  According to the Complaint, Innocoll failed to
disclose that its New Drug Application submission to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration in October 2016 for XARACOLL was
unsuccessful and because of this, XARACOLL could not be approved
in 2017.


INTEGRATED RECOVERY: Faces "Grude" Suit in District of Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Samantha Grude, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Integrated Recovery Services, Inc.; United Debt Holding, LLC; and
Angela Kennedy, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00227-KMT (D.
Colo., Jan. 25, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate
Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya.

Integrated Recovery offers debt recovery management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Benjamin Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


JACKSONS FARMING: Class Cert. Sought in "Sanchez-Rodriguez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled CONSTANTINO SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
JOSE ALBERTO AGUILERA-HERNANDEZ, ULISES EDGARDO CRUZ-GONZALEZ,
ESMITH GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ, VALENTIN ALVARADO-HERNANDEZ, DANIEL
RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, and ESDRAS SAHI MENDIOLA-BORDES, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. JACKSONS
FARMING COMPANY OF AUTRYVILLE a/k/a JACKSON'S FARMING COMPANY OF
AUTRYVILLE, WILLIAM BRENT JACKSON, and WILLIAM RODNEY JACKSON,
Case No. 7:16-cv-00028-D (E.D.N.C.), jointly move the Court for an
order certifying a plaintiff class defined as:

     All migrant or seasonal agricultural workers who performed
     temporary or seasonal work in agriculture under the H-2A
     guest worker program for Jackson Farming Company of
     Autryville, William Brent Jackson, or William Rodney Jackson
     at any time during calendar years 2015 and through
     September 28, 2016.

According to the Motion, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have
negotiated a settlement agreement in the action that includes
relief on a class-wide basis, and the Parties submit the Motion
pursuant to that Settlement Agreement.  The Parties have submitted
a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement
contemporaneously with the filing of this Motion.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pso1ileD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1269
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul H. Derrick, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 200
          Raleigh, NC 27606
          Telephone: (919) 424-3850
          Facsimile: (919) 786-9662
          E-mail: pderrick@fmglaw.com


KEIVAN SARRAF: Faces Ryoo Dental Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keivan Sarraf, DDS,
Inc. The case is styled as Ryoo Dental, Inc., doing business as
Ryoo Dental, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Keivan Sarraf, DDS, Inc., doing
business as Kairos Dental Laboratory, doing business as Kairos
Dental Lab, the Plaintiff, v. Keivan Sarraf DDS, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00102-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2017). The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

Keivan Sarraf DDS is an orthodontist in Los Angeles, California,
specializing in orthodontics for children and adults.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          FARMER JAFFE WEISSING
          EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN PL
          425 North Andrews Avenue Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524 2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524 2822
          E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Mass. Over Non-Payment of Medical Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA DEOLIVEIRA, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 17-0218 (Mass. Super. Ct., Jan.
20, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's
violations of Massachusetts General Laws, including non-payment of
medical bills and expenses.

On June 7, 2011, the Defendant insured Plaintiff under a
Massachusetts Automobile Insurance Policy. The Plaintiff was the
operator of a motor vehicle which was involved in a collision. As
a result of the collision, the Plaintiff suffered personal
injuries, received reasonable and necessary medical care, and
treatment for personal injuries she sustained in the collision.
The Plaintiff incurred reasonable and necessary medical bills and
expenses. The Plaintiff notified Defendant of the loss and
submitted reasonable and necessary medical bills and expenses in
the amount of $2,004.30 to her health insurance carrier, the
Fallon Community Health Plan.

On August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted the itemized Fallon
lien to Defendant for payment under the terms and conditions of
the MedPay provision of her automobile insurance policy. The
itemized Fallon lien identified the medical bills and expenses
that were paid by Fallon. The information that Plaintiff submitted
to Defendant for payment under the terms and conditions of the
MedPay provision of her automobile insurance policy with Defendant
indicated that the reasonable and necessary medical bills and
expenses were paid by Fallon. The reasonable and necessary medical
bills and expenses, which Plaintiff requested
Defendant pay under the terms and conditions of the MedPay
provision of her automobile insurance policy with Defendant, were
paid by Fallon, and were not covered or payable under the PIP
provision of the automobile insurance policy. As a result,
coverage and payment of Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary
medical bills and expenses should have been made under the MedPay
provision of the automobile insurance policy. The Defendant
allegedly failed and refused to pay the reasonable and necessary
medical bills and expenses under MedPay provisions of the
insurance policy.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer, and the
second-largest property and casualty insurer in the United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliot Beresen, Esq.
          MANELIS & BERESEN
          929 Worcester Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 875 3833
          E-mail: eberesen@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Vlomeau, Esq.
          CONNOR, MORNEAU & OLIN, LLP
          273 State Street, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413)455 1730
          Facsimile: (413)455 1594
          E-mail: jmomeau@cmolawyers.com
                  nolin@cmolawyers.com


LIVANOVA: Faces "Foster" Suit in District of South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LivaNova PLC. The
case is titled as Steven Foster, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LivaNova PLC,
Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH, and Sorin Group USA Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00218-BHH (D.S.C., Jan. 24, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Bruce Howe Hendricks.

LivaNova is a London, England-based medical device manufacturer.
The company develops devices used for cardiac surgery,
neuromodulation and cardiac rhythm management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L Ward , Jr., Esq.
          J Stephen Welch, Esq.
          Steven Randall Hood, Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER LLC
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 388 7202
          Facsimile: (843) 388 3194
          E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com
                  swelch@mcgowanhood.com
                  rhood@mcgowanhood.com


LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish Officials Undecided on Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Kinchen reports Livingston Parish officials are at odds over
whether to support a lawsuit blaming the Interstate 12 median wall
for the extent of flooding residents living north of the highway
experienced in August.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by attorneys for the cities of
Denham Springs and Walker and others on Jan. 5 in Baton Rouge
state court, claims the 19-mile-long concrete wall dividing the
eastbound and westbound lanes of the interstate acted as a dam,
impeding the natural flow of water during the record flood.

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the state Department of
Transportation and Development to change the wall's design, as
well as money damages from the state and/or 20 contractors who
designed and built the wall as part of the state's "Geaux Wider"
project.

The Livingston Parish School Board voted unanimously to join the
lawsuit, and the Parish Council is scheduled to discuss the case
on January 19.

Parish President Layton Ricks said he had hoped discussions
between Gov. John Bel Edwards and former Walker Mayor Rick Ramsey,
who had pushed for changes to the interstate project even before
the August flood, would have led to a solution.

"But it appears the state's intent is not to address this wall,
nor change the design of the wall moving further to the east" with
additional phases of the Geaux Wider project, Ricks said. "And
because of that, I do think the parish needs to join the lawsuit
in support of the cities of Denham Springs and Walker."

Some parish councilmen echo that sentiment, saying they see no
other option for spurring the state to action. Others remain
unconvinced, arguing that a 1,000-year rain event would have
swamped the parish regardless.

Councilman Maurice "Scooter" Keen, of Denham Springs, said he
doesn't like the idea of suing anyone --  least of all the state,
which funds vital road improvement projects in the fast-growing
parish and which faces ongoing budget woes.

"But if the only way to get it fixed is to sue, then that's what
we need to do," Keen said. "The odds of that kind of flood
happening again are a tiny, little fraction, but the odds were
also a tiny, little fraction in August, and look what we got."

Councilman Shane Mack, of Albany, said he believes the flood
contributed significantly to the level of devastation many
residents and businesses experienced. He said he is concerned
about what will happen during future rain events if the state uses
the same wall design as its I-12 widening project continues
eastward.

"I certainly think we need something to try to protect the people
when they're traveling down the interstate, but I also hate to see
if we had the wall across the whole parish how bad the flooding
would've been," he said. "I don't think we should sit back and say
we hope it doesn't happen again. We did that in March, and then
six months later -- so much worse."

Councilman Jeff Averett, of French Settlement, said his district
south of I-12 may have actually benefited from the median wall --
at least to some extent.

"I think it probably helped on the lower end because once the
water finally came, it went straight through," he said. "We didn't
get that much around Killian or Maurepas like we normally do. But
when it came up, it came up fast."

Averett said he believes the wall was poorly designed --
specifically, that there are not enough openings to allow water to
pass from the north to the south side of the interstate  --  but
he also said he does not support joining the lawsuit.

"We've got enough on our plates already. I just don't think it's a
good idea," he said. "You could watch and see the water pooling on
one side, with only a trickle at the bottom. But that wall was not
designed to withstand 31 inches of rain either, and that's what
hurt us more than anything. We can't handle that much water, no
matter how many holes are in the wall."

Councilman Garry Talbert, of Watson, said he could not support
trying to hold the state or its contractors to a higher design
standard than the parish holds itself.

"When we build a subdivision, we analyze 10-year storm data for
stormwater retention," Talbert said. "We had a 1,000-year rain
event and we want the state to design an interstate for a 1,000-
year event? We're saying we want the interstate to be overtopped,
but when that happens, the water's already out of the banks of our
canals and ditches and rivers, so we're already flooding people."

Talbert agreed with Averett that adding holes to the wall would
make little difference in a record-shattering rain event like the
one in August.

"The only difference between 14 inches and 6 feet of water is how
much Sheetrock you're ripping out and whether you're also changing
a breaker panel," he said. "A house flooded is a house flooded.
And we had people flooded south of the interstate, too."

Talbert said residents and business owners who want to join the
lawsuit already have the option to do so, regardless of what the
Parish Council decides.


LUKE H. BALCHUNAS: American Maritime Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled American Maritime Officers Safety
& Education Plan also known as: Star Center, the Plaintiff, v.
Luke H. Balchunas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Defendants; American Maritime Officers Safety &
Education Plan also known as: Star Center, a Florida not-for-
profit trust, Counter Defendant; and Kosto & Rotella, P.A., a
Florida professional association, Counter Defendant, Case No. 16-
001356-SC, was removed from the Pinellas County Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00146-EAK-AAS to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Kovachevich.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Douglas Sierra, Esq.
          KOSTO & ROTELLA, PA
          619 E Washington St
          PO Box 113
          Orlando, FL 32802-0113
          Telephone: (407) 425 3456
          Facsimile: (407) 423 9002
          E-mail: rick.sierra@kostoandrotella.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          3900 First St N Ste 100
          St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327 3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327 3305
          E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq.
          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL,
          BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St N Ste 100
          St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327 3328
          E-mail: glercher@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@finnlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Stephens, Esq.
          BAMA SEA PRODUCTS, INC.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33712
          Telephone: (727) 328 6010


LYONS DOUGHTY: Faces "Saroza" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LYONS, DOUGHTY &
VELDHUIS, P.C. The case is captioned as NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00523-RBK-AMD (D.N.J., Jan. 25, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler.

The Defendant is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


MAGNUM HUNTER: Sagacity Inc. Suit Moved to E.D. of Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sagacity, Inc. on behalf of itself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Magnum Hunter Production, Inc.; Prize Energy Resources, LP; and
Cimarex Energy Company of Colorado, the Defendants, Case No. 17-
CJ-01, was removed from the Marshall County District Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
(Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-
00028-KEW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Magistrate
Judge Kimberly E. West.

Magnum Hunter is a production company which engages in the
exploration, exploitation and development, and operation of oil
and gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, PA
          5301 W 75th St
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradley W. Welsh, Esq.
          GABLEGOTWALS - TULSA
          100 W Fifth St, Ste 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
          Telephone: (918) 595 4800
          Facsimile: (918) 595 4990
          E-mail: bwelsh@gablelaw.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Mallinckrodt PLC. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Mallinckrodt shares between November 25, 2014 and January
18, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact
the firm in advance of the March 27, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

If you purchased shares of Mallinckrodt 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.

According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, Mallinckrodt
and its Chief Executive Officer, Mark Trudeau, issued a series of
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the eventual sustainability of the Company's
monopolistic HP Acthar Gel ("Acthar") profits and the exposure of
Acthar to reimbursement rates by Medicare and Medicaid. In
particular, Defendants issued false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that Acthar's monopoly status as the
sole FDA-approved adrenocorticotropic hormone preparation was the
outcome of unlawful anticompetitive practices and did not reveal
that its growing reliance on Medicare and Medicaid meant that
Mallinckrodt's monopolistic Acthar revenue would be jeopardized if
the government took action to limit the price paid for this drug
by taxpayers.

When this information was released to the investing public, the
value of Mallinckrodt fell sharply, causing investors harm.

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


MANAGED CARE: Faces "Rabionet" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Managed Care of
North America, Inc. The case is entitled as Reima A. Rabionet,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business
as MCNA Dental Plans, Inc., a Florida corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:17-cv-60185-UU (S.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Managed Care operates as a dental benefits administrator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 625
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 529 8858
          E-mail: akaufman@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  edelsberg@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


MARKUM ENTERPRISES: McNeal Seeks to Certify Class of Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RYAN MCNEAL, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARKUM ENTERPRISES,
LLC, d/b/a FLOOR REMOVAL KING and FLOOD OUT RESTORATION; MCWHINEY
& MARKUM, LLC, d/b/a FLOOR REMOVAL KING and FLOOD OUT RESTORATION;
and WESLEY G. MARKUM, Case No. 6:16-cv-01118-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex.),
asks the Court to conditionally certify this class:

     All persons employed as general laborers (or similar
     positions) for Defendant at any time since August 22, 2013.

In conjunction with the Motion, the Plaintiff filed his motion for
approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact
information, setting forth his requests related to providing
notice to putative class members of any class certified by the
Court pursuant to the Motion.

Mr. McNeal, a former general laborer employed by the Defendants,
brought the lawsuit on behalf of certain former and current
employees of the Defendants to recover overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PilflEHD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth C. Goolsby, Esq.
          BOON CALK ECHOLS COLEMAN & GOOLSBY, P.L.L.C.
          1800 N.W. Loop 281, Suite 303
          Longview, TX 75604
          Telephone: (903) 759-2200
          Facsimile: (903) 759-3306
          E-mail: casey.goolsby@boonlaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle M. Jones, Esq.
          JONES & JONES
          1122 Judson Road Longview, TX 75601
          Telephone: (903) 236-4990
          Facsimile: (903) 236-6210
          E-mail: mjones@joneslawyers.com


MAURY COBB: Gomez Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Gomez moves the Court to certify the class described in the
lawsuit titled IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. MAURY COBB, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00072-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xmRaij52

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


MCGILL UNIVERSITY: Westmount Residents Sue Over Ventilation Noise
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela MacKenzie, writing for CTV News, reports that thousands of
Westmount residents can expect compensation after an agreement in
principle was reached with the McGill University Health Centre.

The dispute was over noise coming from the ventilation system at
the hospital's Glen site.

The residents had initially appealed to the MUHC and Westmount
city council because they were frustrated by the low level noise
coming from the hospital.  Eventually the group hired lawyers to
file a class action lawsuit.

"You think it's a big truck and you keep waiting for them to turn
off the motor and you realize it's not the motor or a plane
engine, it's just this building," said Christiane Loiselle, one of
the Westmount residents involved in the dispute.

Those who live closest to the site found they couldn't spend time
in their backyards anymore.

"Some of them, the closest, had a hard time sleeping at night even
with their window closed," said class action lawyer Catherine
Sylvestre.

Ms. Sylvestre's firm and a lawyer for the MUHC worked out a
tentative agreement which calls for financial compensation and
reduced noise levels.  $420,000 in total will be divided between
the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

Compensation will be doled out based on four zones where affected
residents live in relation to the Glen site.

Those in Zone 1 will receive the most compensation.  It works out
to roughly $1,000 for each person in a home, divided monthly over
22 months.

Anyone living in Zone 4, the furthest away from the site, will not
receive financial compensation but will benefit from the reduced
noise levels.

According to the agreement, noise levels from the site can't
exceed 43 decibels, which is the average level of ambient noise in
a city. It also calls for a noise monitoring system.

The MUHC has already taken measures to install noise dampeners
around the ventilation equipment.

Lawyers for both sides will be in court February 6th to seek
approval of the tentative agreement.

Westmount residents who would still like to file a claim for
damages after the court date, will have three months to do so.


MINNESOTA: Court Nixes Suit vs. Department of Commerce
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mosedale at Minnesota Lawyer reports the Minnesota Court of
Appeals has shot down a putative class-action lawsuit that
challenged how the Department of Commerce handles about $750
million worth of "abandoned" cash, property, and other assets it
has stashed in the state's general fund.

In a lawsuit filed in Ramsey County in 2015, the four plaintiffs
accused the department of ramping up its campaign to maximize the
state's haul but not doing nearly enough to track down the
rightful owners whose assets it holds.

Along with asserting that such a lack of "meaningful" notice
violates due process, the lawsuit alleged that the state engages
in unconstitutional taking even when owners recover their assets
because, under the Minnesota Unclaimed Property Act (MUPA), they
don't get a penny of accrued interest.

The three-judge Court of Appeals panel didn't buy either argument.
In a published opinion issued on January 23, Judge Renee Worke
also brushed aside the criticism of the Department of Commerce's
chief method for providing notice to property owners -- a "poorly
publicized" website, www.missingmoney.com where visitors "must
type in their name in a search for buried treasure" rather than
simply peruse an alphabetical list.

"In the modern world, it is not uncommon or burdensome to conduct
internet searches," Worke wrote.

Pointing to a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Texaco, Inc. v.
Short, Worke also rejected the notion that MUPA is
unconstitutional because it authorizes the taking of private
property without just compensation.

In upholding an Indiana statute that automatically terminated
mineral rights left unused for 20 years, the Texaco court
concluded that the state has no obligation "to compensate the
owner for the consequences of his own neglect." Texaco was cited
by the Oklahoma Supreme Court last year (in Dani v. Miller) when
it upheld the constitutionality of Oklahoma's unclaimed property
act, which is substantially similar to MUPA, Worke wrote.
The appeals court did not squarely address the argument that the
state's failure to pay interest constitutes a taking.

In a footnote, Worke acknowledged a 7th Circuit decision
(Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 2013) that said the government must
compensate a property owner whose assets were originally held in
an interest-bearing account.

But because the Minnesota lawsuit is positioned as a class action,
the appeals court only addresses common claims, reasoned Worke,
who noted that only one of the four named plaintiffs in the suit
had her funds taken from an interest-bearing account.

The appeals court's ruling comes as a relief to state officials.
In a year-end financial report, Myron Frans, director of Minnesota
Management and Budget, calculated the state's potential exposure
from a successful class action as "in excess of $15 million."
Ross Corson, the director of communications for the Department of
Commerce, said the court got the decision right.

"We're pleased by the ruling, which reaffirms similar rulings that
have been made by the United States Supreme Court and other
states' courts on similar issues," Corson said.

According to Corson, the Commerce Department returned a record
high $49.3 million in unclaimed property to more than 30,000
individuals in fiscal year 2016. He credited that increase to more
publicity about the existence of the fund, as well as improvements
to the department's back office operations that have made it
easier to file and process claims.

Still, the amount of money in the unclaimed property fund has
continued to swell. As of Dec. 31, the state was holding $749
million, which is up from $606 million when the lawsuit was first
filed two years ago and more than twice the total from a decade
ago.

So what accounts for the surge?

Banks and other institutions have become more aware of their
obligations under MUPA to remit and report dormant funds, said
Corson. In recent years, he added, the Commerce Department has
entered into civil settlements with nine life insurance companies
over allegations that they were not making enough effort to locate
the beneficiaries of policies.

Dan Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- with Gustafson
Gluek, the lead attorney in the lawsuit, said he was disappointed
with the appeals court decision and expects to seek further review
from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

"We believe strongly this program is currently unconstitutional
and we believe it is depriving citizens of Minnesota of their
property," said Hedlund, an attorney at the Minneapolis firm
Gustafson Gluek. "We look forward to vindicating their rights at a
higher court."

Hedlund noted that the increase in the state's unclaimed property
fund correlates with a series of changes to MUPA that has steadily
chipped away at the "dormancy period," which provides the
timetable for the remittances of various types of property to the
state.

When MUPA was enacted in 1969, for instance, the dormancy period
for assets held by life insurance companies and banks, including
the contents of private safe deposit boxes, was set at 20 years.
In 1977, that period was knocked down to seven years. Subsequent
legislation reduced it to three years.

Joe Atkins, a lawyer and former state representative from Inver
Grove Heights who worked on the unclaimed property issue for
several years at the Legislature, said he wasn't surprised by the
Court of Appeals ruling because he doesn't think that MUPA is
unconstitutional.

"My hope is this won't have to be resolved by a lawsuit. My hope
is that it will be resolved by a little more outreach," said
Atkins, who unsuccessfully pushed for legislation last year that
would have funded more positions at the Commerce Department to do
proactive outreach and mandated the publication of unclaimed
property notices in newspapers.

"We should be as aggressive as getting people's money back to them
as we are at locating it," Atkins said, adding that he doesn't
blame the Department of Commerce or its commissioner, Mike
Rothman, for the lack of progress.


MORGAN COUNTY, GA: Inmate Seeks Info on Consent Decree Compliance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Clines, writing for The Decatur Daily, reports that Morgan
County Commission Chairman Ray Long said Sheriff Ana Franklin told
him she has not misused money intended to feed jail inmates, and
he said the County Commission has no desire to assume
responsibility of feeding inmates.

Mr. Long also said he believes the county is complying with a
federal consent decree order that requires the county to provide
adequate housing and services to jail inmates.

Sheriff Franklin has denied The Decatur Daily's public records
request for financial information about the jail inmate food
account on the basis that it is her personal money.

State law allows a sheriff to keep money that is not spent to feed
jail inmates except where a county commission adopts a resolution
to assume responsibility for feeding inmates.

But U.S. District Court Judge U.W. Clemon, who is now retired,
wrote in a 2009 consent decree amendment that all money the Morgan
County sheriff receives for feeding inmates "will be used
exclusively" for feeding inmates.  Judge Clemon recently said the
order applies to Franklin, who was not the sheriff in 2009.

If Sheriff Franklin is using the inmate food money for any purpose
other than feeding inmates, it is "clearly" a violation of the
2009 order, Judge Clemon said recently.

The consent decree was the result of a 2001 class-action lawsuit
filed by Morgan County Jail inmates against the county and Sheriff
Steve Crabbe about conditions in the jail.

There had been no action in the lawsuit for two years until two
weeks ago, when an inmate filed a hand-written motion for the
county to show it is complying with the consent decree or be held
in contempt.

Mr. Long said he asked Sheriff Franklin about the inmate food
account because of rumors he had heard that she was using the
money for personal items.

"She assured me that she hasn't used any of the money for
herself," Mr. Long said on Jan. 27 of his face-to-face meeting
with Franklin in his office.

Decatur lawyer Barney Lovelace, who represents Sheriff Franklin,
said on Jan. 27 he would not comment on the jail food account.

An audit released in February 2015 by the Alabama Department of
Public Accounts of the Morgan County Sheriff's Office showed a
balance of $199,204.82 in the food and service account on May 31,
2014.

The state audit covered a 2 1/2-year period from Dec. 1, 2011,
through May 31, 2014. It is the latest state audit of the
Sheriff's Office. Franklin took office in early 2011.

The food account gained $70,691.12, from $128,513.70 on Dec. 1,
2011, to $199,204.82 on May 31, 2014, the audit showed.

During the 30-month period covered by the audit, the Sheriff's
Office received $778,373 and spent $717,681.88 to feed inmates.
The incoming money was from the state and other agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Justice, to house and feed
inmates.

The state pays the county $1.75 per inmate for each day a state
inmate is in the jail.  The federal government pays the county
about $3 for each meal served to a federal inmate in the jail.

Former Morgan County Sheriff Greg Bartlett testified in 2009 that
he had kept about $212,000 in unspent inmate food money over three
years.

State law allows a county commission to adopt a resolution to be
in charge of feeding jail inmates and directing any leftover money
to the county's general fund.

The Morgan commission has no interest in removing the
responsibility from the sheriff, Mr. Long said.

"We think that the system we have, if used properly, is very
adequate to feed inmates," he said.

Mr. Long said the county would have to hire someone to oversee
food preparation, meal plans and more if the county was in charge
of feeding inmates.

"We'd have to be over there all the time making sure that we have
the right food over there and that we have a dietitian over
there," Mr. Long said.  "I'm not interested in doing it all."

Mr. Long said he has not received any complaints about the meals
served to jail inmates.

Tuscaloosa and Madison counties are among the few counties in the
state where the local county commission is in charge of its jail
inmate food account.

Tuscaloosa County lost nearly $344,000 feeding its jail inmates in
fiscal 2016, according to county Chief Financial Officer Bill
Lamb.  The county received $312,128 to feed inmates and spent
$655,890, he said.

"I don't see how we could make money on food," Mr. Lamb said.

The expenses were for food and related materials, and do not
include the salaries of three jail cooks employed by the county,
Mr. Lamb said.

Tuscaloosa and Morgan counties both have a jail with a capacity of
500 inmates.

In Limestone County, Sheriff Mike Blakely gave up pocketing
leftover money from feeding inmates in 2010 when the Legislature
passed a bill that set his salary at 85 percent of the salary of
the highest paid circuit court judge.

Sheriff Blakely said on Jan. 27 that any money left over from
feeding inmates stays in the account.

"When I leave office, it stays in there for the next
administration," he said.

Sheriff Blakely said the account had a net gain of between $5,000
and $10,000 in fiscal 2016.  He could not recall the present
balance in the account.

Several attempts seeking information about Madison County's jail
inmate meal program were unsuccessful.

John Kister, who is in Morgan County Jail on eight counts of
first-degree robbery, filed a motion in federal court Jan. 17
asking that Morgan County show why it should not be held in civil
contempt of the 2001 consent decree.

Mr. Kister, 52, of Decatur, cited problems with crowding, meals,
medical treatment excessive force and other issues that he said he
has encountered while in jail since May 16, 2015, court records
show.

U.S. District Judge Abdul K. Kallon had given the county until
Friday, Feb. 3, to respond to Mr. Kister's motion.

Judge Kallon had scheduled a 2:00 p.m. Monday, Jan. 30, telephone
conference with attorneys on both sides to discuss the status of
the case.


NATIONAL BUREAU: Faces "Aronova" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Bureau
Collection Corporation. The case is captioned Ester Aronova,
Angela L. Zippel, Joseph Fowles, and Caitlin Rivera, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
National Bureau Collection Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
7:17-cv-00572-CS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel.

National Bureau provides online debt collection and delinquent
account management services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NOLI CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cross" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noli Construction.
The case is entitled as Patrick Cross, Individually and on behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Noli
Construction, doing business as GW Construction, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00133-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2017). The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

The Defendant is a general contracting company specializing in the
fabrication and installation of process piping, related process
equipment, tanks and associated structures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


NORTH HILLS: "Cordova" Suit Seeks $25,000+ Worth of Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROSA A. CORDOVA on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTH HILLS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS
CENTRE, LP, a California limited partnership, and DOES 1-100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Jan. 20, 2017),
seeks permanent injunction and damages for herself and the class
in excess of $25,000.

The case is a wage and hour class action lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff and other current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants in California seeking unpaid wages for Defendant's
failure to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal
and rest breaks, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time penalties in
the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay former
employees all earned and unpaid wages, applicable civil penalties
following exhaustion of administrative remedies, injunctive relief
and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to
Labor Code, costs, and interest, if applicable, brought on behalf
of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

North Hills Healthcare is a nursing care facility located in North
Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 13
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in OneMain Holdings, Inc. of the March 20, 2017
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company, certain
officers and the Company's majority shareholder to seek the role
of lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all those who purchased
OneMain common stock between March 3, 2015 and November 7, 2016
(the "Class Period").  The case, Paddock v. OneMain Holdings,
Inc., et al, No. 17-cv-00007 was filed on January 17, 2017, and
has been assigned to Judge Richard L. Young.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements
and/or failing to disclose material information concerning: (1)
the net income projected to be achieved due in large part to the
acquisition of OneMain Financial Holdings, LLC ("OneMain
Financial") by Springleaf Holdings, Inc. ("Springleaf"), which
resulted in the creation of the Company; and (2) the integration
of and synergies between OneMain Financial and Springleaf.

Specifically, after the market closed on November 7, 2016, the
Company announced its third quarter results and held a conference
call.  During the conference call, defendant Jay N. Levine
disclosed that the Company was decreasing guidance for full-year
2016 and 2017 with respect to the growth in its loan portfolios
and its preferred measure of earnings.

On this news, OneMain's share price fell from $27.57 per share on
November 7, 2016 to a closing price of $16.90 on November 8, 2016
-- a $10.67 or a 38.7% drop.

If you invested in OneMain stock or options and would like to
discuss your legal rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/OMF.  You can
also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-
4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.  Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages
anyone with information regarding OneMain's conduct to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Attn:  Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


OXFORD HEALTH: Mom Seeks Coverage for Son's Wilderness Therapy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniello at New York Post reports a Brooklyn mom is
demanding an insurance company pick up the $50,000 tab for her
son's "wilderness therapy," a program where troubled kids hike
their problems away while eating ritzy food and getting clean
clothes delivered.

The woman filed an anonymous class action lawsuit against Oxford
Health Insurance, saying the company, by refusing to pay, had
violated a state law ensuring equal coverage for mental issues.

Her 16-year-old has struggled for years with "depression, low
self-esteem, and harmful aggression," according to the Brooklyn
Federal Court papers.

The teen's therapist wanted to put him in a residential treatment
facility, but the centers required wilderness therapy first, the
mom said.

She and her husband, a Brooklyn small business owner, enrolled
their son in Second Nature, a Utah-based program where struggling
youth hike three-to-five miles a day, set up and break down camp
and have frequent group therapy sessions. Meals include everything
from organic and vegan options to granola, tofu, summer sausage
and stir fries.

According to Second Nature's Web site, being in the wild helps
kids "process" their issues.

"Woven into the daily schedule is a strong focus on assertive
communication skills, which are used to process feelings and
thoughts that arise while hiking, cooking together, setting up
camp and other activities," the Web site says.

Oxford first rejected the mom's request for coverage in May,
because it didn't consider Second Nature a licensed residential
mental health program. The company allegedly denied an appeal from
the mom claiming the treatment is not "evidence based."

But evidence strongly supports the effectiveness of wilderness
therapy, said Michael Gass, who studies the practice.

Residential treatment facilities "are finding that their clients
are more willing to change when their clients have gone on
wilderness therapy," he said.

The programs usually include around-the-clock staffing with
trained therapists in 60-to-90-day stints, which accounts for the
large expense, said Gass, director of the University of New
Hampshire's Outdoor Behavioral Health Center.

Lawsuits are starting to crop up aiming to force insurance
companies to cover wilderness therapy. "[It's] the big debate
right now," said Gass.

Oxford hadn't seen the lawsuit, said a spokeswoman who declined to
comment.


P.S. MANAGEMENT: Faces "Dotson" Suit in S.D. of W.Va.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.S. Management,
Inc. The case is styled as Kristopher Dotson, individually and on
behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. P.S.
Management, Inc., PFC, Inc., P.S. II, Incorporated, and P.S. III,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00896 (S.D. W.Va., Jan. 25,
2017).

P.S. Management is a business consulting service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Patrick Jacobs, Esq.
          7020 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
          Charleston, WV 25304
          Telephone: (304) 926 6676
          Facsimile: (304) 926 8336
          E-mail: pjacobs@jacobslawwv.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Feb. 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or
entities who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired eBay, Inc.
securities (EBAY) on the open market on or after December 19, 2013
(the "eBay Class Period") and subsequently received PayPal
Holdings, Inc. securities (PYPL) pursuant to eBay's spin-off of
PayPal, effective as of July 17, 2015; and/or (2) purchased or
otherwise acquired PayPal securities  on the open market from July
20, 2015 through April 28, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "PayPal
Class Period" and, together with the eBay Class Period, the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PayPal
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the PayPal class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1024.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PayPal's Venmo service was involved in unfair trade
practices; (2) once the above facts were made public, it was
likely to impact PayPal's profitability of its Venmo service and
increase regulatory scrutiny; and/or (3) consequently, PayPal's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 27, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1024.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


PENN RIDGE: "Castellon" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlos Castellon, Alejandro Avila,
and Juan Gabriel Acosta, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Penn Ridge Transportation, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants; Penn Ridge Transportation,
Inc., Cross Claimant; and Xochitl I. Pazos, an individual and Roes
1-20, inclusive, the Cross Defendants, Case No. CIVS1508746, was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division - Riverside). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge S. James
Otero. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00149-
SJO-SP to the proceeding.

Penn-Ridge Transportation provides trucking transportation
services. The Company offers shuttle operations, cross-dock
operations, and warehouse inventory.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David P Myers, Esq.
          Ann Hendrix, Esq.
          Jason T Hatcher, Esq.
          Robert M Kitson, Esq.
          MYERS LAW GROUP APC
          9327 Fairway View Place Suite 100
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 919 2027
          Facsimile: (888) 375 2102
          E-mail: dmyers@myerslawgroup.com
                  ahendrix@myerslawgroup.com
                  jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com
                  rkitson@myerslawgroup.com

The Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Claimants are
represented by:

          Megan Emslie Ross, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT
          HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue Suite 460
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795 4790
          E-mail: mross@scopelitis.com
                  cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


PETSMART INC: Faces Suit for Overcharging on Animal Food
--------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports a Florida consumer is suing
a pet food company, alleging violation of state law.

Scott Leeds filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Nov. 21 in the Circuit
Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit Miami-Dade County against
PetSmart, Inc. alleging the defendant wrongly charges consumers
for prescription animal food.

According to the complaint, in 2016, Leeds sustained monetary
damages from being charged a tax for one can of Hill prescription
diet dog food. The plaintiff alleges PetSmart charges its
customers tax for prescription animal food even though their
receipts indicate this is a non-taxable amount.

The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Dec. 30.

Leeds seeks trial by jury, enjoining the defendant, damages, court
costs and any further relief the court grants. He is represented
by attorneys Adam M. Moskowitz -- amoskowitz@kttlaw.com --, Gail
A. McQuilkin -- gmcquilkin@kttlaw.com -- and Michael R. Lorigas --
mlorigas@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP in
Coral Gables, Florida.


PIXARBIO CORPORATION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against PixarBio Corporation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of PixarBio (1) pursuant and/or traceable to PixarBio's
private placement that closed on October 30, 2016; and/or (2)
publicly traded on the open market from October 31, 2016 through
January 20, 2017, both dates inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for PixarBio investors under the federal
securities laws.

According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
market for the Company's securities exhibited manipulative or
deceptive activities; (2) the Company's assertions in press
releases, third-party promotional materials, and PixarBio's Form
S-1 concerning, among other things, PixarBio's business
combinations and current shareholders; the identity and
qualifications of key shareholders and employees and PixarBio's
current and prospective development efforts lacked veracity; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 27, 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 --


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Rappley" Suit in C.D. of Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is entitled as Patricia Rappley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and Does 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00108-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal., Jan. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jesus G.
Bernal.

PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Bevely Drive Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


QUAKER OATS: "Phung" Suit Transferred from N.D. Ill. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Phung, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quaker
Oats Company, a New Jersey corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-06215, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
00499-PA-AFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Percy Anderson.

The Quaker Oats Company, or known as Quaker, is an American food
conglomerate based in Chicago. It has been owned by PepsiCo since
2001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Anthony L Parkhill, Esq.
          Jeffrey Daniel Blake, Esq.
          Erich P Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC
          One North LaSalle Street Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621 2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641 5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik J. Ives, Esq.
          FOX SWIBEL LEVIN AND CARROLL LLP
          200 W. Madison St., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 224 1239
          E-mail: eives@fslc.com


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Qualcomm Incorporated and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Qualcomm securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Qualcomm securities between
February 1, 2012 and January 19, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until March 24, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Qualcomm is a global semiconductor company that develops, designs,
licenses, and markets worldwide its digital communications
products and services, primarily through its two main business
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies and Qualcomm Technology
Licensing.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (i) Qualcomm engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain
a monopoly for semiconductors used in mobile phones in violation
of federal law; (ii) in turn, Qualcomm lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result,
Qualcomm's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On December 28, 2016, the South Korean Fair Trade Commission fined
Qualcomm a record $853 million for violating antitrust laws. After
a three-year investigation, the Korean antitrust regulator found
that Qualcomm breached antitrust law by limiting competing chip
makers' access to its patents. It also found that the Company
forced mobile-phone manufacturers into unfair license agreements
by refusing to supply critical phone chips to those that would not
accept Qualcomm's terms.

On this news, Qualcomm's share price fell $1.50, or 2.23%, to
close at $65.75 on December 28, 2017.

On January 17, 2017, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission commenced
an enforcement action against Qualcomm following an investigation
of the Company's licensing practices.  The agency's complaint,
filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, said that Qualcomm used its dominant position to
maintain an illegal monopoly in the market for mobile phone chips.

On this news, Qualcomm's share price fell $2.69, or 4.02%, to
close at $64.19 on January 17, 2017.

On January 20, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that tech-
giant Apple Inc. was suing Qualcomm, alleging that the Company
"leveraged its monopoly position as a manufacturer of baseband
chips, a critical component used in cellphones, to seek 'onerous,
unreasonable and costly' terms for patents, and that Qualcomm
blocked Apple's ability to choose another supplier for chipsets."
The article further reported that Apple was seeking $1 billion in
rebate payments that Qualcomm allegedly withheld as retribution
for Apple's involvement in an investigation conducted by South
Korea's antitrust regulator.

On this news, Qualcomm's share price fell $1.56, or 2.42%, to
close at $62.88 on January 20, 2017.

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED. The case is titled as Gloria Sanchez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20262-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 20, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a Fortune 500 company providing
clinical laboratory services with headquarters in Madison, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A.
          3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962 2333
          Facsimile: (954) 927 2451
          E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeremy William Alters, Esq.
          Justin David Grosz, Esq.
          MORELLI ALTERS LLP
          1855 Griffin Road
          Dania Beach, FL 33304, Suite C470
          Telephone: (305) 571 8550
          Facsimile: (305) 571 8558
          E-mail: Jeremy@alterslaw.com
                  jgrosz@morellialters.com

               - and -

          Matthew Ian Buchwald, Esq.
          PO Box 547266
          Surfside, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 788 2680
          E-mail: matt@theconsumerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Matthew T Moore, Esq.
          VAN HORN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          330 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 450
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 765 3166
          Facsimile: (954) 756 7103
          E-mail: matthew@cvhlawgroup.com


RECOLOGY INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recology, Inc. The
case is captioned as RAMIREZ, MARCO ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
the PLAINTIFF, v. RECOLOGY, INC., and DOES 1-100, the DEFENDANTS,
Case No. CGC 17 556653 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2017).

Recology is an integrated resource recovery company headquartered
in San Francisco, California. The company collects and processes
municipal solid waste, reclaiming useful materials that would have
otherwise been buried in a landfill.


REYER PARKING: " Sabala-Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Sabala-Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Reyer Parking Corp., Hassan
Biberaj, and John Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
435 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendant (i)
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law, and (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

For roughly the first three years of Mr. Sabala-Gomez's employment
with Reyer, he worked a regular schedule of twelve hours per day,
seven days per week, for a total of about 84 hours per week. For
approximately the last six months of Mr.
Sabala-Gomez's employment with Reyer, he received two days off
each month, so he worked 84 hours in about half the weeks and 72
hours in the other half of the weeks. The Defendants did not
provide a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for
employees to track their time worked. Mr. Sabala-Gomez was paid
weekly at a fixed salary of $525 per week throughout his
employment with Reyer. The amount of pay that Mr. Sabala-Gomez
received did not vary based on the precise number of hours that he
worked in a day, week, or month. As a result, Mr. Sabala-Gomez's
effective rate of pay was always below the statutory federal and
state minimum wages in effect at relevant times.

Reyer Parking is a parking facility at 1872 Tremont Avenue, Bronx,
New York 10460.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


SOLARCITY CORP: "Lucero" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to N.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jose Albino Lucero, Jr., On behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff and
George Morris, Absent class member, the Movant, v. Solarcity
Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15cv05107, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
(Dallas). The Northern Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-mc-00005-M to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.

SolarCity is an American company that specializes in solar energy
services. Headquartered in San Mateo, California, it is the
largest solar energy services provider in the US.

The Plaintiff and Movant are represented by:

          Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES
          Park Central I
          7616 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 855 1850
          Facsimile: (214) 720 6074
          E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua D Arisohn, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989 9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Customers File Auto Parts Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that rebuffed
on their federal civil racketeering conspiracy claims, customers
of a Belmont, Calif., Mercedes-Benz dealership are pursuing a new
suit accusing the store, Sonic Automotive Inc. and Mercedes-Benz
USA of fraud, negligence and consumer protection violations.

The proposed class action alleges that Autobahn Motors, Sonic and
MBUSA since 2005 have misled customers to believe that genuine
manufacturer parts, supplies and oil were being used on serviced
vehicles, and it alleges that customers were wrongfully invoiced
for those more expensive parts and supplies.

It also alleges that Autobahn used zMAX, an oil additive not
recommended by MBUSA, in its used cars.  Sonic affiliate Speedway
Motorsports Inc. manufactures zMAX and is named as a co-defendant.

The new filing came after U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers, in Oakland, Calif., ruled that the plaintiffs had failed
to offer sufficient evidence of a conspiracy among the companies
and some of their executives and managers under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiffs "might state a simple claim for fraud or unfair
business practices by their respective companies," she said in her
ruling, "but they do not allege that the individual defendants
participated in a pattern of racketeering acts by a RICO
enterprise."

While tossing the RICO allegations, the judge left the door open
for the plaintiffs to seek compensatory and punitive damages under
California laws.

The new suit alleges schemes that include falsely advertising that
manufacturer parts are superior to or last longer than
nonmanufacturer parts and asserting on the MBUSA website that
authorized dealerships would use manufacturer parts.

As a result of an "OEM scandal," according to the suit, thousands
of customers were overcharged, and some nonmanufacturer parts,
such as oil filters, could have negative effects on their vehicles
or void warranties.

Autobahn also used nonmanufacturer products, such as spark plugs,
motor mounts, brake sensors, gaskets and ignition cables, without
customers' permission and in contradiction with advertising
statements by the store and MBUSA, the suit asserts, saying that
Sonic Automotive had directed its dealerships to do so.

The suit was filed in state court but was transferred, on MBUSA's
motion, to federal court and the same judge because it is a
nationwide class-action suit for more than $5 million.

Plaintiffs lawyer Herman Franck of Sacramento said his clients
will ask a jury to award punitive damages because the defendants
"knowingly put all this stuff in the cars.  The people didn't
know."

Lawyers for the dealership, MBUSA and Sonic Automotive did not
respond to requests for comment.


SOUTHERN CO: Misled Investors on Facility Construction Progress
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Ablaza at The Meridian Star reports a class action lawsuit
was filed against Southern Co. over Mississippi Power Co.'s
construction of its Kemper County energy facility.

The complaint says that Mississippi Power Co.'s parent, Southern
Company, and its officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed the suit on Jan. 20 in the
U S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf
of purchasers of Southern Co. stock between April 25, 2012, and
Oct. 29, 2013. Southern Co. headquarters are in Atlanta.

The complaint alleges that during that time period, Southern Co.
"made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the progress of the Kemper Plant,
assuring investors that the project would be completed by its May
2014 deadline, even when cost overruns and other delays began to
materialize."

"As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions,
Southern Company common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period," Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
said in a statement.

On Oct. 30, 2013, Southern Co. announced its third quarter 2013
financial results, disclosing an after-tax charge of $93 million
"related to increased cost estimates for the construction" of the
Kemper plant. The company also disclosed in an earnings conference
call on the same day that the in-service date for the Kemper plant
would be delayed until year-end 2014. The price of Southern Co.
common stock declined significantly afterward.

Southern Co. and Mississippi Power Co. announced plans for a
"clean coal" plant in 2006. The project had a funding package of
almost $1 billion in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and
tax credits from the Internal Revenue Service when Southern Co.
broke ground in 2010, according to the lawsuit.

The financing was contingent on completing construction of the
plant by May 2014.

After various delays, Mississippi Power Co.'s $7 billion-plus
Kemper County energy facility is scheduled to be fully operational
on lignite coal by Jan. 31, the utility said earlier this month in
a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Appeals High Court's Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a statement issued on Jan. 30, a spokeswoman for Southern
Response Earthquake Services Limited said:

"Southern Response [Mon]day filed an appeal of the High Court's
decision to allow a proposed class action to proceed.

"We are concerned that a class action will not fairly and
efficiently resolve each customer's individual insurance claim. We
are also concerned that a class action will delay the settlement
of individual claims, especially given the Court's indication that
customers' individual insurance claims will not be considered by
the Court until after the Group's general claim is dealt with.

"The High Court also said that the class action is based on a
'reasonably tenuous' general claim by the Group about Southern
Response's claims management practices, and that the Court reached
its decision to allow a class action to proceed 'by a rather fine
margin'".  The Court's decision follows an earlier decision by the
High Court that did not allow a class action to proceed.

"The Group's claim about Southern Response's claim management
practices, which the High Court described as "tenuous", has no
basis and there is no evidence to support it.  As a result, a
class action should not have been allowed to proceed.  Instead,
customers' insurance claims should be dealt with on an individual
basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case.

"Southern Response also holds serious concerns about the impact of
the funding arrangements for the class action on individual
customers.  We welcome the Court's decision that some customers
may have been misled about some aspects of the class action, and
that the Group's Australian funder and lawyers must take
corrective action.

"We continue to offer customers the opportunity to seek two free
hours' expert, independent legal advice from a lawyer of their
choice (not involved in the action) around the conditions of the
class action so they are well informed on the risks of being
locked into this method of litigation.

"The original representative for the Group has now settled with
Southern Response and has withdrawn from the action.  An
additional ten other Group members have also settled their claims
with Southern Response and have withdrawn from the action (or are
in the process of doing so).

"As the Group reduces from the original 47, we will continue to
work with the remaining 36 customers in the Group, and all other
customers, to settle their claims fairly and as quickly as
possible.

"Since the original proposed class action was launched in April
2015, we have successfully settled 2,289 claims.  In total, we
have successfully settled 83 percent of our nearly 8,000 over-cap
house claims and 99 percent of our 21,693 out-of-scope claims.

"More widely, we are focused on supporting customers with disputes
to use less costly and more efficient methods of dispute
resolution, including mediation and the Insurance and Financial
Services Ombudsman, and free support from external parties such as
Breakthrough Services or the Residential Advisory Service.

"As we enter the final stages of our programme, we are committed
to working closely with our remaining customers to resolve their
claims fairly and as quickly as possible."


SPOTLESS: IMF Bentham to Fund Second Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that services group Spotless is facing a class action from
shareholders over allegations it misled investors about its 2015
financial prospects.

Listed litigation funder IMF Bentham will fund the action that is
expected to be filed in the Federal Court by William Roberts
Lawyers.

It's the second potential class action the group is facing, the
first is being investigated by ACA Lawyers with the support of
funder Investor Claim Partner.  Slater & Gordon is also
investigating a claim against the company.

IMF Bentham and William Roberts allege Spotless' financial results
for the 12 months to June 30 were misleading and in breach of
Spotless' continuous disclosure obligations.

A key part of the proposed claim will be the impact that a change
of accounting policy that was allegedly not disclosed in Spotless'
accounts.

William Roberts Principal Bill Petrovski said the claim would
alleged the accounting change inflated the value of Spotless's
shares because it made the results look better than they actually
were.

"Although Spotless announced that it had beaten its prospectus
2015 earnings forecasts, this does not appear to have been the
case on a like-for-like basis," Mr Petrovski said.

"It appears that full year net profit after tax was increased by
almost 25 per cent over what it would have been had the prior
accounting policy been used," Mr Petrovski said.

He said that as a result, Spotless' margins in 2015 also looked
healthier.

Spotless shares fell more than 40 per cent to $1.33 in December
2015 when the company issued an earnings downgrade.

The company had returned to the boards in 2015 following a $1
billion bookbuild at $1.60.  It's return followed a three-year
period as a private company after it was purchased by Private
Equity Partners.

The claim is proposed to be brought on behalf of Spotless
shareholders who acquired shares between August 25 2015 (just
after the release of the 2015 results) and December 1, 2015 (the
day before the downgrade.

On Jan. 30 its shares fell 3.8 per cent to 96 cents.

Spotless told the Australian Securities Exchange that no
proceedings have been served against the company.

"Spotless considers that it has at all times been in compliance
with its continuous disclosure obligations and intends to
vigorously defend proceedings in the event that they are
commenced," the company said.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Says Facial Scans Does Not Cause Harm
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Gorta at Law360 reports the maker of an NBA video game
asked a New York federal judge on January 20 to toss a putative
class action claiming the company collected and retained facial
scans of gamers because the players didn't suffer any actual harm.
Victor Jih of Irell & Manella, arguing for Take-Two Interactive
Software Inc., told U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl that based
on Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo v. Robins and the more
recent Second Circuit decision in Strubel v. Comenity Bank, a
simple statutory violation does not constitute a concrete injury.

Plaintiffs Vanessa Vigil and Roberto Vigil in the putative class
action accuse Take-Two of violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, or BIPA, by capturing and storing 3-D
scans of their faces for two video games, NBA 2K15 and NBA 2K16,
and making their likenesses visible to other players online. But
Jih said failing to get permission in writing or not notifying
players of a retention policy are, if anything, procedural
violations and thus the claims do not have Article III standing.

"Plaintiff must still allege and show some kind of particularized
injury," he said. "They're claiming a technical violation because
it wasn't in writing."

Frank Hedin, Esq. -- fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- at Carey
Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP responded that the injury relates to
the underlying issue of privacy. He said the fact that gamers
uploaded their pictures to create avatars, but did not consent to
an "undisclosed, illegal biometric identifier collection program."

"The right to privacy has been recognized for more than a
century," Hedin said. "Biometrics are not like a password that can
be changed. They're immutable."

In his rebuttal, Jih called the plaintiffs' argument "entirely
circular."

"You can't say the underlying right of privacy created in BIPA is
the right of privacy," Jih said.

Judge Koeltl said he would take the motion under advisement.

Counsel for the partied declined to comment outside court.

Vanessa Vigil initially filed suit with another gamer in October
2015 but amended her complaint to include her brother, Roberto
Vigil, instead. The pair claims the company never obtained their
written consent to disseminate the information it gathered through
its MyPlayer face-scanning feature as required by the Illinois
statute, adding that the company stores users' faces indefinitely.

The "highly detailed geometric maps of the face" created by the
games are unique to individual users and could be used to identify
them in the same way as a fingerprint or voiceprint, the Vigils
claim.

The suit proposes a class of thousands of Illinois residents who
used the feature on Playstation 4 or other game consoles and asks
for statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation and an
injunction that would bring the company into compliance with the
BIPA.

Vanessa Vigil and Roberto Vigil are represented by John Carey,
Esq. -- JCarey@CareyRodriguez.com -- David Milian, Esq. --
dmilian@careyrodriguez.com -- Frank Hedin and Ernesto Rubi, Esq. -
- erubi@careyrodriguez.com -- of Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP.

Take-Two is represented by Jed Bergman -- jbergman@kasowitz.com --
and Aaron Marks -- amarks@kasowitz.com -- of Kasowitz Benson
Torres & Friedman LLP and Robert Schwartz -- rschwartz@irell.com -
-Victor Jih --  vjih@irell.com -- Nathaniel Lipanovich --
nlipanovich@irell.com -- and Molly Russell -- mrussell@irell.com -
- of Irell & Manella LLP.

The case is Vigil et al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.,
case number 1:15-cv-08211, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ronquillo-Griffin" Suit in S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TELUS
Communications, Inc. The case is captioned as Kelissa Ronquillo-
Griffin, Khoi Nguyen, and Russell Smith, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TELUS
Communications, Inc., and TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00129-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal.,
Jan. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jeffrey T.
Miller.

TELUS Communications offers a range of wireline and wireless
telecommunications products and services, including data, Internet
protocol, and voice.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


TWO BROS: Garcia Molina Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN GARCIA MOLINA, and ROGER M. GUERRERO, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TWO BROS.
SCRAP METAL INC.; ROCCO COLUCCI; and/or any related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 604691/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 20, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and for wage theft
violations, owed to Named Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
persons who are presently or were formerly employed by the
Defendant, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is
assigned to Hon. Jeffrey S. Brown

The Defendant Colucci directed and controlled various aspects of
the work performed by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
workers. The Defendants allegedly did not provide payroll receipts
that accurately reflect the total amount of hours worked and
corresponding wages earned for the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
workers were provided with paystubs, but were not allowed to cash
the paychecks that were supposed to be attached. Instead,
Plaintiffs were paid in cash based on a flat daily rate of pay.

Two Brothers Scrap offers some of the highest scrap metal prices
in the Tri-State area for aluminum, copper, brass, lead, steel and
stainless steel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Ste.347
          Carle Place, NY 11514

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Lockwood, Esq.
          1476 Deer Park Avenue Ste 3
          North Babylon, NY 11703
          Telephone: (631) 242 3369


UNITED STATES: Trump Immigrant Order Stayed After Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bohn, Ellie Kaufman, Sheena Jones, Mohammed Tawfeeq, Rachel
Crane, Chris Welch and Sarah Jorgensen, writing for CNN, report
that a federal judge granted an emergency stay on Jan. 28 for
citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries who have already
arrived in the US and those who are in transit, and who hold valid
visas, ruling they can legally enter the US -- a decision that
halts President Donald Trump's executive order barring citizens
from those countries from entering the US for the next 90 days.

"The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in
establishing that the removal of the petitioner and other
similarly situated violates their due process and equal protection
guaranteed by the United States Constitution," US District Judge
Ann Donnelly wrote in her decision.

"There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there
will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-
holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January
27, 2017, Executive Order," the ruling said.

The ACLU argued on Jan. 28 in a federal court in New York for a
nationwide stay that would block the deportation of all people
stranded in US airports under what the group called "President
Trump's new Muslim ban."

The civil rights group is representing dozens of travelers held at
John F. Kennedy International Airport on Jan. 27 and Jan. 28,
including two Iraqis with ties to the US military who had been
granted visas to enter the United States.

The class-action lawsuit is the first legal challenge to Trump's
controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends
admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other
refugees into the United States by instituting what the President
has called "extreme vetting" of immigrants.

The two Iraqis, Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer
Abdulkaleq Alshawi, had been released by Jan. 28.  But lawyers for
other detained travelers said in a court filing that "dozens and
dozens" of individuals remained held at JFK.

Trump's order, signed on Jan. 27, bars travel from seven Muslim-
majority countries, including Iraq, to the US for 90 days.  It
also suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days until
it is reinstated "only for nationals of countries for whom"
members of Trump's Cabinet deem can be properly vetted.

According to court papers, both Darweesh and Alshawi were legally
allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with
Trump's order.

Darweesh, who worked as an interpreter for the US during the Iraq
War, was released from detention early on Jan. 28.

"America is the land of freedom," he told reporters at the airport
shortly after his release.  "America is the greatest nation."

A source with knowledge of the case confirmed Darweesh will be
allowed into the US due to provisions in Trump's order that allow
the State and Homeland Security departments to admit individuals
into the US on a case-by-case base for certain reasons, including
when the person is already in transit and it would cause undue
hardship and would not pose a threat to the security of the US.

The suit said Darweesh held a special immigrant visa, which he was
granted the day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, due to his
work for the US government from 2003 to 2013.

Alshawi was released on Jan. 28, according to his attorney, Mark
Doss.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-New York, who had arrived at JFK by early
Jan. 28 to try and secure the release of the two Iraqis, railed
against Trump's order and pledged continued action.

"This should not happen in America," Rep. Velazquez said following
Darweesh's release.  "One by one, street by street, if we have to
go to court, we will fight this anyplace, anywhere."

'The executive order is unlawful'

The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month
to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee
status for her association with the US military.

The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they
maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal.

"Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to
petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the
executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and
substantive due process rights," the lawyers argue in court
papers.

Court papers said Customs and Border Protection authorities did
not allow the lawyers to meet with the men and told them to try
reaching Trump.  Velazquez and fellow New York Democratic Rep.
Jerrold Nadler said they attempted to speak to Darweesh and
Alshawi at JFK's Terminal 4 earlier on Jan. 28 but were denied.

"When Mr. Darweesh's attorneys approached CBP requesting to speak
with Mr. Darweesh, CBP indicated that they were not the ones to
talk to about seeing their client.  When the attorneys asked, 'Who
is the person to talk to?' the CBP agents responded, 'Mr.
President.  Call Mr. Trump,'" the court papers read.

Doss, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance
Project, told CNN his clients knew they had to get to the US as
soon as possible so they boarded the first flight they could.

The two men had been allowed to make phone calls. They do not know
each other, and it is unclear if they were held together or
separately, or if they were kept in a holding cell, according to
Doss.

"Our courageous plaintiff and countless others risked their lives
helping US service members in Iraq.  Trump's order puts those who
have helped us in harm's way by denying them the safe harbor they
have been promised in the United States," said Karen Tumlin, the
legal director of the NILC.

The lawsuit was earlier reported by The New York Times.

Legality questioned

Trump's executive order, titled "Protection Of The Nation From
Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," makes good on his
longtime campaign promise to tighten borders and halt certain
refugees from entering the United States.

The countries impacted are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen
and Somalia, according to a White House official.  It also caps
the total number of refugees admitted into the United States
during the 2017 fiscal year at 50,000, down more than half from
the current level of 110,000.

"I am establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic
terrorists out of the United States of America," Trump said during
the signing at the Pentagon.  "We don't want them here."

But the order immediately raised questions about its legal
standing.

"What this order does is take people who played by the rules who
have been rigorously vetted and slams the door of the country in
their face because of their religion," said David Leopold, an
immigration attorney and the former president of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association.

But Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at
Cornell Law School, said Trump's order may have merit.

"The plaintiffs are alleging a variety of reasons why they should
not be detained under the executive order.  Their arguments
include the equal protection clause of the Constitution and a
provision in the immigration law that prohibits national origin
discrimination," Mr. Yale-Loehr said.  "However, presidents have
wide discretion on immigration, because immigration touches
national sovereignty and foreign relations. Courts tend to defer
to whatever a president declares on immigration. I think the
administration could win."

An administration official told CNN if a person has a valid visa
to enter the US but is a citizen of one of the seven countries
under the temporary travel ban, then the person cannot come into
the US.  If the person landed after the order was signed on
Jan. 27, then the person would be detained and put back on a
flight to their country of citizenship.

Separately, Department of Homeland Security officials acknowledged
people who were in the air would be detained upon arrival and put
back on a plane to their home country. An official was not able to
provide numbers of how many have already been detained.

Progressives outraged

Democrats and liberal-leaning groups continued to denounce Trump's
order on Jan. 28 as racist.

"The first two refugees kept out of America by President Trump's
order are Iraqis who helped US troops survive during the war,"
Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tennessee, said on Twitter.  "These men risked
their lives for years to keep our troops safe.  One was with the
101st Airborne. This is no way to treat our allies."

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called the action an "anti-Muslim
order" that "plays into the hands of fanatics wishing to harm
America."

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on the Trump
administration to "rescind these anti-American executive actions
that will do absolutely nothing to improve our safety."

Travelers turned away

Sarah Assali from Allentown, Pennsylvania, told CNN on Jan. 28
that the US government stopped six of her Syrian family members at
Philadelphia International Airport and sent them back to Doha,
Qatar, the origin city of their flight.

Ms. Assali said her family members were persecuted Christians and
did not speak very good English, so they did not fully understand
why they were being put on a plane back to the Middle East.

Additionally, some US-bound travelers who were either refugees or
from countries specified in Trump's executive ban have been turned
back from Cairo International Airport, according to a Cairo
airport official who is not authorized to speak to the media.

The official said they were required to follow the instructions of
the United States in the matter.  He said "(The airport personnel)
have no choice but to follow orders.  I don't want to blame anyone
here."


UNITED STATES: ACLU's Class Action Over Trump Muslim Ban Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Boddiger, writing for Fusion, reports that attorneys for
several rights groups won a major battle on Jan. 28 after a
federal judge issued a stay on President Donald Trump's anti-
Muslim executive order.  That ruling effectively stops the
administration from deporting refugees and immigrants from the
seven predominantly Muslim countries cited in Trump's order.

Several attorneys are now waging a legal battle to rule Trump's
discriminatory order unconstitutional.  The American Civil
Liberties Union, which along with the International Refugee
Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, the National
Immigration Law Center, and other groups won the legal victory in
federal court, will continue arguing the case as a class-action
lawsuit by claiming the executive order "violates due process,
equal protection, international law, and immigration law."

They also will argue the executive order violates the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause.  According to ACLU Legal
Director David Cole, "the Constitution bars the government from
targeting Islam.  One of the lowest of many low moments in
Donald Trump's presidential campaign was his December 2015 call
for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslim immigration.

The ACLU will set out to prove the intent and effect of Trump's
order was to discriminate based on religion, and given both
candidate and President Trump's previous statements, they'll have
plenty of examples to cite.

Groups like the National Iranian American Council plan on
challenging Trump administration policy by taking congressional
and legal action while maintaining public pressure to keep the
issue in the public's eye and spread it to a broader audience.

According to NIAC, "Congress can pass legislation to revoke the
order, revoke the President's authorities to carry out such an
order, and/or block funding for the implementation of the order.
NIAC Action is organizing now to convince lawmakers to take on
such an approach."

The ACLU also is working to block Trump's nominee for attorney
general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions.  On Jan. 25, the ACLU sent
a letter to senators Charles Grassley and Dianne Feinstein urging
them to call a second hearing on Sessions' nomination due to "the
grave dangers to civil liberties and civil rights, posed by the
actions taken and proposed by President Donald Trump over the past
five days."  The ACLU wants the Senate to investigate Sessions'
possible role in developing the Trump administration's new
executive orders and "his plans to implement and execute them."

The letter stated:

As you know, in his first hearing, Senator Sessions testified, 'I
have no belief and do not support the idea that Muslims as a
religious group should be denied admission to the United States.'
Because President Trump's [then] forthcoming executive order
excludes refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries,
we advise you to seek further clarification from Senator Sessions
about whether he intends to implement this order and whether he
believes it to be consistent with his first claim to the
committee.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary was scheduled to vote on
Sessions' nomination on Tuesday, Jan. 31.

Meanwhile, here is NIAC's latest analysis on the immediate
consequences of Trump's order, which gives insight to the impact
the travel ban will have on people from different countries.

If you are an Iranian national outside of the U.S. with a valid
U.S. visa, you will not be able to enter the United States.

Iranian nationals who are also citizens of a 3rd country (e.g.
Canada) will still be barred from entering the United States,
according to the State Department.

U.S. permanent resident aliens (green card holders) from Iran who
are outside of the United States will be barred from re-entry,
according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.

Green card holders must apply for a case-by-case exemption from
the Department of Homeland Security to be allowed reentry to the
United States.

U.S. citizens will not be directly affected by the ban.
There is nothing to indicate that persons on valid visas inside
the United States will be expelled so long as they do not leave
the country and have a legal basis for remaining in the U.S.
Stay tuned, the legal battle is just beginning.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Raises $24MM After Travel Ban Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Cheng, writing for CNBC, reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union has raised $24 million since Jan. 28 and added
more than 150,000 new members, according to media reports.

"What we've seen is an unprecedented public reaction to the
challenges of the Trump administration," Anthony Romero, executive
director of ACLU, told Yahoo News.

USA Today reported on Jan. 29 that the ACLU had received more than
350,000 online donations totaling $24 million since Jan. 28.  The
non-profit organization typically raises about $4 million online
in a year, according to the newspaper who cited Romero.

The ACLU and other activist groups filed a class action lawsuit on
Jan. 28 to challenge President Donald Trump's on Kan. 27 executive
order that restricted travel to the U.S. for citizens of seven
countries linked to terrorism.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Iraqis, both with ties to
U.S. security forces, who were temporarily detained at JFK Airport
in New York on Jan. 28.

A federal judge granted an emergency stay on Jan. 28 to prevent
deportation of people who had landed in the U.S. with valid visas.

Trump said on Jan. 29 that his decision was not about religion but
rather an effort to improve national security, and that "America
is a proud nation of immigrants."


UNITED STATES: Faces "Dominick" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government.
The case is captioned as STAN DOMINICK, GENE RACANO, KRISTIAN
RIVERA, ANEWRYS ROSARIO, and JONATHAN ARENCIBIA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
USA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00113-SGB (C.O.F.C., Jan. 25,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Susan G. Braden.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Francis Mihalich, Esq.
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 280 3008
          Facsimile: (212) 656 1845
          E-mail: mm@belllg.com


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Proposed Data Breach Class Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Willett, Esq., at Reed Smith, in an article for Mondaq,
wrote that affirming a lower court decision, the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania held January 12 that dismissal of a proposed data
breach class action was proper, because the University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center lacked a legal duty to protect employee
information stolen by a third party. The 2-1 majority's finding
that UPMC had no duty of care to protect the compromised
information was based upon a thorough analysis of factors the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has established for determining the
existence of a duty.  The dissent analyzed the same factors but
argued that on balance, they weighed in favor of finding a duty.

A group of UPMC workers brought the suit for negligence and breach
of contract in 2014, after personal information of approximately
62,000 employees -- including names, birth dates, SSNs, bank
information and tax information -- was stolen and used to file
fraudulent tax returns and steal tax refunds. UPMC had required
employees to provide that information as a condition of
employment.  According to Plaintiffs, UPMC owed a legal duty to
protect their personal information, and failed to do so by failing
to "properly encrypt data, establish adequate firewalls, and
implement adequate authentication protocols."  The Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County (Wettick, J.) disagreed and dismissed
the claims, and the Superior Court followed suit.

In doing so, the Superior Court analyzed factors described in
Althaus ex. Rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 116 (Pa. 2000) and
reaffirmed in Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 57 A.3d 1232
(Pa. 2012), which determine the existence of a duty of care:

The relationship between the parties;

The social utility of the actor's conduct;

The nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm
incurred;

The consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and

The overall public interest in the proposed solution.

While the Superior Court found that the employer-employee
relationship was of a type that typically gives rise to duties,
the first factor was the only one that favored imposing a duty on
UPMC. The Superior Court observed that the social utility of
electronic information storage is high, and while harm from data
breaches is foreseeable, an intervening third party stealing data
is a superseding cause. Additionally, the Court explained that a
judicially created duty of care would be unnecessary to motivate
employers to protect employee information, as "there are still
statutes and safeguards in place to prevent employers from
disclosing confidential information" in addition to business
considerations. Finally, the Court agreed with the trial court's
conclusion that creating a duty in this context would not serve
the public interest; rather, it would interrupt the deliberative
legislative process and expend judicial resources needlessly.
Indeed, while the Pennsylvania General Assembly has imposed a duty
of notification, it has not felt compelled to impose a duty to
safeguard information beyond those already described by statute.

In addition, the Superior Court rejected the breach of contract
claim, finding that UPMC had not entered into an implied contract
to protect its employees' information, and there were no
indications UPMC intended to enter into such a contract. "Despite
their contrary assertions, [Plaintiffs] did not give their
information to UPMC for the consideration of its safe keeping, but
instead, for employment purposes," the Court said.


USAA CASUALTY: "Archuleta" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to D. Col.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action titled as Jerry Archuleta, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USAA
Casualty Insurance Company, and United Services Automobile
Association, the Defendant, Case No. 2016CV34180, was removed from
the Denver County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado (Denver). The case is assigned to Hon.
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00191-KMT to the proceeding.

USAA serves military members and their families with competitive
rates on insurance, banking and investment services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Franklin David Azar, Esq.
          Jonathan Steven Parrott, Esq.
          Keith Richard Scranton, Esq.
          Patricia A. Meester, Esq.
          Tonya L. Melnichenko, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR &
          ASSOCIATES, PC-AURORA
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014-1474
          Telephone: (303) 757 3300
          Facsimile: (303) 759 5203
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  parrottj@fdazar.com
                  scrantonk@fdazar.com
                  meesterp@fdazar.com
                  melnichenkot@fdazar.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marilyn S. Chappell, Esq.
          Jon F. Sands, Esq.
          SWEETBAUM SANDS ANDERSON, P.C.
          1125 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2100
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 296 3377
          Facsimile: (303) 296 7343
          E-mail: mchappell@sweetbaumsands.com
                  jsands@sweetbaumsands.com


VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah on behalf of purchasers of Vista Outdoor, Inc. (VSTO)
securities during the period between August 11, 2016 and January
13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until March 27,
2017 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Vista securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Vista was
experiencing an acceleration in the softening of the retail
environment and an acceleration in its own promotional activity,
that the Company was experiencing revenue and gross margin
declines, and that the Company would have to begin the impairment
assessment for its Outdoor Products segment's reporting units in
the third quarter of 2017.

According to the complaint, following a January 11, 2017 press
release disclosing the impairment assessment, the acceleration and
the declines, and a January 13, 2017 announcement that the
Company's president was being replaced, the value of Vista shares
declined significantly

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Vista securities purchased on or after August 11, 2016 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at -- hoffman@browerpiven.com -- or by telephone at (410)
415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

            Kessler Topaz Files Securities Suit

The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Vista
Outdoor Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between August 11, 2016 and January 13, 2017, inclusive.

Investors who purchased Vista securities during the Class Period
may, no later than March 27, 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/vista-outdoor-
inc#join

Vista 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.

Vista designs, manufactures and markets consumer products in the
outdoor sports and recreation markets.  Vista operates in two
segments, Shooting Sports and Outdoor Products.

As detailed in the complaint, on January 11, 2017, Vista issued a
press release entitled "Vista Outdoor Announces Expected Non-Cash
Intangible Asset Impairment Charge."  Therein, Vista disclosed
that it expected to record a material asset impairment charge in
its Hunting and Shooting Accessories reporting unit in the third
quarter of its fiscal year 2017 ("FY17").  Further, although Vista
reported that it was still "in the process of finalizing the
actual amount of the impairment, the Company's preliminary
analysis indicates the impairment charge will be in the range of
$400 million to $450 million."  On this news, shares of the
Company's stock fell $8.21 per share, or 21.7%, to close on
January 12, 2017 at $29.58 per share.

Then, on January 13, 2017, Vista disclosed that it had appointed a
new President of its Outdoor Products segment.  On this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $0.88 per
share, or 3%, to close on January 13, 2017 at $28.70 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Vista was experiencing an
acceleration in the softening of the retail environment and an
acceleration in its own promotional activity; (2) that, as such,
Vista was experiencing both revenue and gross margin declines; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would have to
start the impairment assessment for its Outdoor Products segment's
reporting units in the third quarter of 2017, rather than with the
preparation of the company's FY17 annual financial statements; and
(4) that, as a result, the Company would have to recognize an
impairment charge in the range of $400 million to $450 million.
The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' statements about Vista's business, operations and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Vista shareholders may, no later than March 27, 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/vista-outdoor-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).


VOLKSWAGEN AG: 25,000 British Motorists Join Dieselgate Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Massey, Motoring Editor for The Daily Mail, reports that more
than 25,000 British motorists have joined legal action against car
giant Volkswagen over the 'dieselgate' emissions scandal.

Motorists took their fight to the High Court on Jan. 30 seeking a
green light to proceed with the UK's first "class action".
The scandal erupted when VW was exposed as using "cheat devices"
to fiddle emissions and fuel efficiency figures.  If successful it
could see VW landed with a bill of GBP3.6 billion.

Volkswagen reached a GBP15 billion settlement with 500,000 owners
in the US, but the German car giant offered nothing to motorists
in Britain and Europe.

Lawyers spearheading the action say more than 25,000 consumers
have joined the legal action since it was revealed by the Daily
Mail at the beginning of January -- with more than 100,000 owners
making contact.

They are seeking GBP3,000 compensation per car for 1.2 million
Volkswagen, Audi, SEAT and Skoda vehicles in the UK.

It comes as prosecutors in Germany announced at the weekend that
they were investigating former Volkswagen chief executive
Martin Winterkorn for fraud as they widened their probe into the
scandal.

Mr. Winterkorn, who resigned days after the scandal became public
in September 2015 -- is one of 16 more suspects now under
investigation in the criminal case centred on VW's creation, sale
and concealment of the "cheat devices" in 11million vehicles.
The High Court challenge also comes amid fury that while
Volkswagen in the US -- where executives have also been arrested -
- have pleaded guilty to fraud, paid hefty criminal and civil
fines amounting to billions of pounds ($4.3 billion).

Law firm Harcus Sinclair -- acting on behalf of a number of legal
groups including Slater and Gordon -- is asking the High Court to
grant the first UK group litigation order -- a British version of
a US style "class action" -- on behalf of consumers in England and
Wales.

A group litigation order is the Court's mechanism for handling
claims involving a large number of claimants who share the same
complaint.

Submissions were scheduled to be heard on Jan. 30 by Barbara
Fontaine, the Senior Master of the Queen's Bench Division at the
Royal Courts of Justice.

Harcus Sinclair said that on Jan. 27 it had served a claim form on
behalf of a sample 6,726 claimants in England and Wales but it
noted: "Over 25,000 consumers have joined the action since 9
January 2017.  A claim form naming the remainder will be served
within the next few weeks."

It added: "The scandal has affected 1.2 million cars in the UK
alone, and current and previous owners of these cars are eligible
to join the legal action."

But lawyers fear privately VW may seek to delay proceedings in a
bid to 'kick the case into the long grass' and rack up costs.

The scandal was exposed in the autumn of 2015 when environmental
engineers at Transport & Environment (T&E) and the International
Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) revealed VW's cheating,
which the firm admits.

Affected cars include VW, Audi, SEAT and Skoda vehicles with 1.2,
1.6 and 2.0 EA 189 diesel engines manufactured between 2009 and
2015.

The key allegation is that the affected cars should not have been
certified as fit for sale because it is alleged that they produced
higher levels of nitrous oxide or NOx emissions than the rules
allowed.

It is also alleged that the affected vehicles only passed official
emissions tests because their engines were fitted with a "defeat
device" which reduces NOx emissions under test conditions.

The UK class action surrounds the fact that drivers paid a premium
price for what they thought were clean diesel cars.
Lawyers highlight figures from the government's Department for
Rural Affairs that NOx emissions cause 23,000 premature deaths in
the UK each year.

Claimants have been signing up to the legal action via the website
www.vwemissionsaction.com which was set up by Harcus Sinclair to
provide more information about the case.

Volkswagen has admitted equipping diesel cars with sophisticated
software that turned on emissions controls when engines were being
tested by the Environmental Protection Agency, then turned them
off during normal driving.

The software, called a "defeat device" because it defeated the
emissions controls, improved engine performance but spewed out
harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Frees Home Depot From Energy Star Label Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc at Law360 reports a New York federal judge on January
19 freed Home Depot from a lawsuit attempting to hold the company
liable, as Whirlpool's agent, for selling washing machines that
Whirlpool allegedly falsely labeled as energy-efficient,
ultimately ruling any breach of warranty claims are not Home
Depot's fight.

Home Depot Inc. in July asked to be released from the consumers'
putative class action against Whirlpool Corp. and two other home
appliance retailers, saying the consumers had no proof connecting
Home Depot to Whirlpool's warranty.

The judge agreed, also dismissing the claims against Sears
Holdings Corp. and Lowe's Home Centers LLC, but allowing to stand
breach of warranty allegations against Whirlpool.

Consumers had filed their initial complaint against the home
appliance companies in February of last year, alleging they paid a
premium for Maytag Centennial washing machines that were labeled
as "Energy Star"-compliant in hopes of eventually recouping the
extra costs through savings in energy and water bills.

However, U.S. Department of Energy testing revealed that the
machines did not meet the Energy Star label's stringent energy-
efficiency requirements. The consumers said that the lack of
efficiency was a latent defect that would have prevented them from
purchasing the machines if it were not hidden from them.

"The mislabeled washing machines have never, at any point, been
properly labeled with the Energy Star logo," the suit said. "This
is analogous to the unauthorized practice of medicine. Suppose a
fraudster misrepresents himself as a board-certified physician and
opens a medical clinic, only to be exposed years later. This does
not mean that the fraudster was properly licensed to practice
medicine prior to his exposure. To the contrary, the fraudster was
never licensed, and any statements to the contrary were false."

The suit sought damages for breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment under state consumer protection laws of New York,
Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee and South Dakota. The breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment claims applied to all defendants, including Home
Depot and rival Lowes Home Centers, and the rest apply to
Whirlpool Corp.

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached.

The putative class is represented by Neal Jamison Deckant --
info@bursor.com -- and Scott A. Bursor -- info@bursor.com -- of
Bursor & Fisher PA.

Home Depot is represented by David R. Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -
- and Renee Marie Gallagher -- rgallagher@mccarter.com -- of
McCarter & English LLP and Galen Driscoll Bellamy --
bellamy@wtotrial.com -- and Eric L. Robertson --
Robertson@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg & O'Donnell LLP.

The case is Famular et al. v. Whirlpool Corp. et al., case number
7:16-cv-00944, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


* Shareholder Derivative Actions Could Raise Due-Process Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Richman, Esq. -- jerichman@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer,
in an article for JD Supra Advisor, wrote that the Delaware
Supreme Court requested further consideration of the federal due-
process issues that might arise where a court is asked to hold
that a shareholder derivative action is precluded because a prior
derivative action was dismissed based on the first plaintiff's
failure to make a demand on the company's board before filing
suit. The Court's January 18, 2017 decision in California State
Teachers' Retirement System v. Alvarez squarely focuses on an
issue that has been raised several times in the Delaware Court of
Chancery: whether federal due-process principles prevent the
actions of a named plaintiff in a derivative action from binding
other shareholders unless and until a court holds that the
plaintiff has authority to sue on behalf of the corporation.

The ultimate resolution of this question could affect the strategy
decisions confronting plaintiffs and defendants when multiple
shareholder derivative actions are filed in two or more forums.

                      Factual Background

The dueling derivative actions at issue here began in the wake of
an alleged bribery scandal involving a Wal-Mart subsidiary. The
cases were filed in Arkansas federal court and in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

During an initial conference in Delaware, the then-Chancellor
"explicitly warned plaintiffs' counsel that the extant complaints
before him likely would not survive a motion to dismiss," and he
urged counsel to take the time to examine Wal-Mart's books and
records pursuant to Sec. 220 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law because the case was not an expedited matter. The Delaware
plaintiffs heeded the Chancellor's warning and spent nearly three
years litigating their demand for corporate books and records.

The Arkansas plaintiffs, in contrast, chose to proceed solely on
the basis of publicly available information (including internal
corporate documents that had been provided to The New York Times),
and they asserted claims under Delaware and federal law. The
defendants sought to stay the Arkansas case pending the Delaware
proceeding, but the Arkansas court ultimately denied the stay --
and also stated that "[i]t is likely that the first decision on
demand futility will be entitled to collateral estoppel effect."
The Delaware plaintiffs were alarmed by that statement, but they
did not attempt to intervene in the Arkansas litigation. Instead,
they tried -- unsuccessfully -- to convince the Arkansas
plaintiffs to join the Delaware action.

The Arkansas court eventually dismissed the case based on the
plaintiffs' failure to show that making a demand on Wal-Mart's
board before suing would have been futile. Defendants then argued
in Delaware that the Arkansas decision collaterally estopped the
Delaware plaintiffs from raising demand futility in response to
defendants' motion to dismiss. The Chancellor applied Arkansas
preclusion principles and agreed that the Delaware plaintiffs'
derivative claims were barred.

The plaintiffs appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court remanded
the case for further consideration.

                  Delaware Supreme Court's Decision

The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that it "presently ha[d] no
disagreement with the Court of Chancery's analysis of Arkansas
[preclusion] law" as to two key elements of collateral estoppel:
"whether the issue to be precluded [i.e., demand futility] was
actually litigated" and whether the parties potentially subject to
preclusion had been adequately represented in the first
proceeding. (The Court reserved final judgment on these questions
pending its ruling after remand.)

The Court observed that it had "some sympathy" for the Delaware
plaintiffs' plight, because those plaintiffs had "heeded the
Chancellor's advice" to take the time to demand corporate books
and records, while "the [Arkansas] plaintiffs who did not heed
those warnings suffered dismissal of their complaint with the
ultimate effect of barring the action of the Delaware Plaintiffs,
who spent nearly three years fighting the books and records
battle." However, the Court criticized the Delaware plaintiffs for
not seeking to intervene or otherwise participate in the Arkansas
litigation "once it became apparent that the stay of the Arkansas
litigation would be lifted and the judge warned that her decision
would likely have preclusive effect . . . ." "Once the litigation
train began going down the Arkansas tracks, it would seem to have
been incumbent upon the Delaware Plaintiffs to take steps there to
attempt to prevent foreclosure of their action in Delaware.
Instead, they took no action in the Arkansas court -- leaving them
to address the litigation fallout in Delaware."

The Court stated that, even if an intervention attempt had failed
in Arkansas, the effort could have ensured that the Arkansas court
"would take into account the litigation pending elsewhere and make
a determination as to whether any dismissal should be with or
without prejudice, and as to the named plaintiff only, and what
provision, if any, should be made to protect the interests of
other shareholders litigating in other fora." Although New York
preclusion law did not apply to this case, the Court observed that
New York law "provides an exception to claim preclusion in
derivative actions where a stockholder seeks to intervene in the
prior action to protect its interests but is denied leave to
participate." This exception "is intended to protect against the
risk that the first-filing stockholders fail to proceed with
adequate diligence."

The Court also was "presently satisfied" (again, pending a final
ruling after remand) that the Chancellor had correctly applied
Arkansas law on privity in holding that the Delaware shareholders
were in privity with the Arkansas shareholders inasmuch as the
real party in interest in both cases was the corporation. However,
the Court held that the Chancellor had not sufficiently addressed
the Delaware plaintiffs' federal due-process argument, which is
separate from the state-law privity analysis.

The Court turned to a different Court of Chancery decision holding
that, as a matter of federal due process, a judgment in one
derivative action cannot bind the corporation or stockholders in
another derivative action unless and until the plaintiff in the
first case has been given authority to sue on behalf of the
corporation -- either because a court has held that a pre-suit
demand would have been futile or because the board of directors
has given the plaintiff authority to proceed by declining to
oppose the suit. That case had relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's
2011 decision in Smith v. Bayer, which held that, although a
class-action judgment can bind unnamed members of a certified
class, it cannot bind unnamed members of either an uncertified
class or a putative class whose certification has been denied.

The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that "there may be benefit to
having the parties more squarely present the Due Process issue to
the Chancellor in order to allow the Chancellor to express his
views." The Court therefore remanded the case and asked the
parties and the Chancellor to focus on the question: In a
situation where dismissal by the federal court in Arkansas of a
stockholder plaintiff's derivative action for failure to plead
demand futility is held by the Delaware Court of Chancery to
preclude subsequent stockholders from pursuing derivative
litigation, have the subsequent stockholders' Due Process rights
been violated? See Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011)."

                     Implications

The ultimate resolution of this due-process issue could have a
significant impact on plaintiffs' and defendants' strategic
decisions in contexts involving multiple derivative actions in
different courts. But the potential impacts are not necessarily
predictable or consistent with each other.

The decision raises a number of strategic issues for the
plaintiffs' bar, including the following:

The Court emphasized what Delaware courts have said repeatedly for
many years: in derivative actions that do not involve emergencies
or require expedition, shareholders should take time to examine
the corporation's books and records instead of firing off a
lawsuit. Will the Court's renewed warning affect the race to the
courthouse that often ensues in derivative actions?
Will the Court's agreement (at least for now) with the
Chancellor's analysis of the adequacy-of-representation issue be
read to apply only to the perhaps unusual circumstances presented
here, where internal corporate documents had been available on a
public website? In such a situation, a books-and-records demand
might be less important than in the normal case, where internal
corporate records are not publicly available. But in those other
cases, might a dismissed plaintiff's failure to seek books and
records before suing be viewed as inadequate representation?
Will the Court's criticism of the Delaware plaintiffs' failure to
participate in the Arkansas litigation trigger a host of
intervention motions whenever multiple derivative actions are
filed? The Court's discussion of otherwise inapplicable New York
preclusion law could cause such a reaction.
If the Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court conclude that due-
process concerns prohibit precluding other shareholders where a
derivative suit has been dismissed based on the first plaintiff's
failure to show that a pre-suit demand would have been futile,
will shareholders and their lawyers be more careful about pressing
forward in first-filed cases? Or will they be less fearful of
doing so if they think that their actions will not preclude
subsequent litigation?

The decision also raises some strategic issues for corporations
and their directors and officers, including the following:

If due-process concerns prohibit preclusion of subsequent
derivative actions where a prior derivative action has been
dismissed for lack of demand futility, will defendants have less
incentive to press for a ruling on demand futility in the first
case in situations where (i) other shareholders are pursuing
books-and-records demands before suing and/or (ii) shareholders
who have obtained books and records have filed a more detailed
complaint in another action? Or will defendants conclude that a
victory in the first case is worthwhile, even if not technically
preclusive, and therefore push for an early decision?
The case again illustrates the importance of forum-selection
bylaws, which the Delaware courts have repeatedly upheld. Such
bylaws could concentrate the litigation in a single forum.
However, those bylaws will not necessarily work where, as here,
one case (the Delaware action) asserts only state-law claims,
while another case (the Arkansas action) pleads both state-law
claims as well as federal-law claims that are subject to exclusive
federal jurisdiction.

We will continue to follow the Wal-Mart litigation.


                            *********

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  * * *